#but like non binary includes so many unique distinct labels

[dogin8]

Post where I explain what Non Binary means to "It's just the third gender" people by using maths notation

our sets:

B (for Binary)

NB (for Non-Binary)

B = {0,1} which means, the set B is made up of the numbers 1 and 0

now some people think NB = {0.5} or NB = {2} but neither of these are wholly true

NB = {C U R\B} which means, the set NB is made up of every Complex number And every Real number (these two together means basically: every possible value in maths) EXCEPT for numbers in set B

So that means, NB includes EVERYTHING other than 1 and 0. which means 0.5 is included, and 2 is included, but so is 0.9 and 500000 and -π and 12i and e. Non-Binary doesn't refer to one specific gender, it refers to Everything outside of and between the binary which is literally infinite values.

If you wanted to be REAL thorough as well you could say

NB = {C U R/B, (C U R, C U R), (C U R, C U R, C U R), (C U R, C U R, C U R, C U R) (then continue filling brackets with an increasing number of C U R to infinit)}

which means that NB is everything outside the binary AND any pair of two numbers, any group of three numbers, any group of four numbers etc to infinity. This is the best way I could think to display people who identify with multiple genders at once through math notation.

But, my favourite thing about all this is that if you want to be a real math nerd about stuff, you could start just saying "\B" cause that's the most basic form of notation for "Not in set B" "Not in Binary" "Non-binary"

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Tired Transsexual

Published: Sept 1, 2023

Tired Transsexual*

When I first encountered the “trans community”, I carried the belief that it was built on acceptance, understanding and compassion. That it was a safe haven for individuals like me—transsexuals, propelled by dysphoria, navigating the deeply complex, intensely personal journey of sex reassignment. Sadly, over time, I’ve witnessed this community increasingly transform into a platform for what can only be described as sociopathic narcissism, exploiting the struggles of transsexuals for its agenda, and displaying an alarming antipathy towards those who refuse to comply with its convoluted narratives.

I want to first clarify what I mean by sociopathic narcissism. Sociopathy and narcissism are both personality disorders characterised by a lack of empathy, a sense of superiority and a disregard for the feelings and rights of others. When I apply these terms to the trans movement, it’s because I see a system that prioritises individual self-expression and validation over collective welfare and truth.

It’s a system that promotes self-identification over biological and psychological realities, invalidating the experiences of transsexuals who suffer from sex dysphoria. It’s a system that conflates the struggles of a minority with the desire for limitless self-definition of the majority, undermining the fight for legal protections and medical assistance that transsexuals desperately need. It’s a system that forces transsexuals into the same category as crossdressers, drag performers and fetishists, further stigmatising and marginalising us. A system that cares more about the societal validation of “non-binary identities” than the welfare of the transsexuals it claims to represent.

We, who should be at the forefront of the trans movement, are instead pushed aside, silenced, or even vilified if we dare to challenge the ideology. We are othered as “true transsexual scum”, “transmedicalists” and other derogatory terms simply for stating that our experiences are rooted in an unchosen, deeply distressing medical condition, not a fluid sense of gender or a rebellious stance against societal norms.

“My username reflects the exhaustion of navigating a world that often misunderstands or misrepresents transsexuals, not a personal failing. The tireless effort to seek clarity amidst ignorance isn’t a me-problem, it’s an us-problem. So, if I’m tiring myself out, it’s only because I’m doing the heavy lifting in conversations that most would rather sidestep. And if that’s exhausting for you to witness, imagine living it.”—tweet, Tired Transsexual, 30 August 2023

We are berated and vilified for seeking and advocating for medical treatment, which for many of us is a matter of survival. We are dismissed when we point out the very real differences between us and non-dysphoric individuals who claim the trans label. We are accused of being exclusionary, of being gatekeepers, when we simply ask for our unique struggles to be acknowledged and respected. We are denied the right to speak to our distinct experiences and needs by those who claim to care about us the most, and this leaves us with a profound sense of despair and hopelessness. An equally grave consequence of this “trans umbrella” and gender ideology manifests in paediatrics. Misconceptions and ill-informed policies can lead to irreversible decisions made for young, gender non-conforming children who may not have any true discomfort in their sex, yet have been encouraged to consider sex-reassignment therapy under the guise of “affirming their gender”. The severity of this issue and its implications for everyone included in the ever-expanding trans umbrella cannot be overstated. For readers unfamiliar with this level of nuance, consider the potential repercussions. When mainstream society finally grasps the potential harm being done, the backlash may reverberate beyond paediatric gender clinics and queer theory activist groups, negatively affecting public support for the LGBs & Ts—the lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals—who never asked for any of this.

“Many transsexuals worry that minors may be unable to give informed consent in an era where gender non-conformity and transsexuality have been intentionally conflated with transgender.”

The concern among transsexuals about paediatric transition is multilayered. Those of us who have gone through hormonal and surgical sex reassignment interventions ourselves understand how difficult and irreversible the process is. Many worry that minors may be unable to give informed consent in an era where gender non-conformity and transsexuality have been intentionally conflated with “transgender”, and where medical transition has been glamorised as a mechanism to achieve “gender euphoria” or “trans joy”, rather than a means of reducing distress and trying to reach a baseline of normalcy.

Additionally, many transsexuals argue that natal males and females should be treated differently in diagnostic safeguarding due to observable differences in aetiologies—teenage females dominate the red-flag category of “rapid-onset gender dysphoria”— and the greater difficulties of “undoing” the effects of male pubertal maturation when embarking upon medical transition.

While there are those who advocate for an outright ban on paediatric care, this viewpoint is far from universal among transsexuals. Many of us fear that such a ban would give momentum to those who want to ban sex-reassignment interventions altogether, creating a harmful domino effect and an existential threat to our lives.

In essence, the prevailing view among transsexuals is not against paediatric care itself, but against a medical paradigm where the clinical understanding of “gender dysphoria” has become completely detached from the sex-based strife that we experience. In our view, the watering down and genderfication of diagnostic codes (the DSM and the ICD) is a grievous mistake. Those classifications used to recognise transsexualism as a condition involving discomfort over sex characteristics. Now transsexualism is a diagnosis no more, and the reality of discomfort has been obscured by identity politics.

We argue as transsexuals that the psychosocial diagnostic model should be aligned with the emerging neurobiological understanding of dysphoria, with a primary focus on own-body sex perception, not perceived conformity to gender roles.  

My own experience resonates much more closely with not just the older diagnostic category of transsexualism, but also with Stephen Gliske’s controversial 2019 theory, which proposed that dysphoria is a sensory perception condition caused not by cerebral sex dimorphism, but by the profound ways our brains map our sense of self, characterised by sex-atypical primal behaviour, own-body sex perception and distress, fear and anxiety. Unfortunately, Dr. Gliske’s paper was retracted by eNeuro in 2020, after a sustained activist campaign was launched against the journal. Today, transsexuals are such a marginalised sexual minority that our very existence doesn’t warrant a mention in the American Psychological Association’s latest guidelines on sexual minorities, despite transgender being defined as an apparently limitless umbrella term. In defining transgender this way, they acknowledge it is not synonymous with the word transsexual, yet they simultaneously choose to dismiss this meaningful distinction by omitting a term that once gave clarity, recognition and respect to our distinct medical condition and biological reality. How can the medical community provide us the care we need when we’re vanishing from the very documents guiding that care? How can transsexuals have honest, meaningful discussions about our healthcare, our rights, our lives when our very identity is stripped from us without any consultation?

“The inclusive transgender umbrella has, paradoxically, left transsexuals out in the rain.”

The trans movement, in its quest for inclusivity, has become a breeding ground for self-centred entitlement. It has completely lost sight of its initial purpose—to advocate for the rights and well-being of transsexuals—and has instead morphed into a free-for-all where any and all boundaries are viewed as oppressive, and where the feelings and experiences of actual transsexuals are disregarded by gender ideology (i.e., the notion that “gender identity” is a universal trait, rather than exclusive to people with transsexualism). The inclusive transgender umbrella has, paradoxically, left transsexuals out in the rain.

There is an urgent need to reclaim our narrative, to bring the focus back to the realities of being transsexual. As a society, we must resist the sociopathic narcissism that has overtaken the trans movement and re-establish a distinct space for true understanding, empathy and advocacy for transsexual rights and recognition. This struggle is not for an abstract, ever-broadening notion of identity. It is a fight for our right to exist, to receive the medical care we need, and to live our lives without being swallowed up in an all-encompassing trans umbrella that erases our identity and deprives us of the very language we need to articulate our experience. It is a fight for acceptance, not as an identity, but as human beings with unique experiences, challenges and needs rooted in material reality. We are transsexuals and we deserve to be seen, heard and respected as such.

Every application of the term transgender to us is an attempt to mask what we have done and as such co-opts our lives, denies our experiences and violates our very souls. We have had enough.

* Tired Transsexual is the pen name of an Anglo-American male-to-female transsexual who lives in the U.K. Her Twitter account is @tiredtransmed

==

"... gender non-conformity and transsexuality have been intentionally conflated with transgender.”

This is both deliberate and overt. Clinical dysphoria has been excised entirely from the terminology.

https://www.hrc.org/resources/glossary-of-terms

Transgender | An umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or expression is different from cultural expectations based on the sex they were assigned at birth.

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/list-lgbtq-terms

Trans An umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth.

Literally, "gender non-conforming." It doesn't even allude to the very new phenomenon of late-onset anxiety around puberty. You're "trans" if you don't conform to outdated stereotypes.

Which becomes dangerous when gay people and those with autism, who are on average more likely to be gender non-conforming, are tricked by activists into thinking they were "born in the wrong body" in service to a Marxian cultural revolution.

It also means unremarkable and completely normal people can declare themselves "non-binary" or "cakegender," pretend to be "marginalized," and demand rights that they already have or aren't entitled to, and call you a bigot for not going along with it. And as the umbrella grows without limit, it further edges out transsexuals through this anti-trust takeover.

You're not a bigot for rejecting genderwang. Indeed, transsexuals are counting on us to do so, to help them take back both their healthcare and their dignity.

[presentinglesbian]

Lesbian Genders

"Wait", I may hear you ask. "Aren't lesbians, you know, women?"

Well... often yes. (Though there are some who are not women, and identify as other genders, such as non-binary, like me.) However, there are also specific gender identities that lesbians may use to describe their identities in more detail, using gender markers unique to lesbians, most notably butch and femme.

In Western popular culture, butch and femme are held in opposition to one another and are often paired in romantic or sexual couplings, seen as a sort of gay version of a heteronormative man-woman pairing. But there is so much more nuance to these personas than these assumptions of butch and femme gender identities.

Multiple authors, like Lucy Jones, Alison Eves, and Don Kulick consider butch and femme identities to be subversive critiques of the hegemonic position of heterosexuality, created in specific contexts. These identities are distinct forms of gender presentation, play, and even erotic role-play, used in the mirroring of desire, approaches to emotional connection, and other aspects of gender and sexuality. They are spectrums of feminine identity, using conscious choices of styles, gender performance, and stereotypes to build distinctly lesbian personas.

Butch identity is not necessarily the acceptance of 'masculine' ways of doing and being, but instead a rejection of the 'feminine' ways. There may be a focus on the feminine stereotypes of dress (skirts, long hair), behaviour (polite, nurturing), posture (sitting upright, taking up little room), and so on, and a distinct choice to not follow those stereotyped behaviours. Rather than being an inversion of feminine gender to masculine gender, butch is instead a projection of a specifically lesbian gender identity, distinct from both normative femininity and masculinity.

Femme identity, on the other hand, is a different projection of lesbianism as gender. Feminine stereotypes, especially regarding style and beauty, are leaned into and subverted. Presentations of femininity or hyper-femininity are used to comment and critique heteronormative standards by emphasizing certain aspects of visual appearance and behaviour, while embodying other non-normative feminine practises, namely attraction to, and relationships with, other feminine people.

Both butch and femme lesbian genders are used as, "specific patterns of sexual practice and desire, as well as being subversive re-appropriations of masculinity and femininity". However, since there are so many different ways of presenting butch, femme, or otherwise, there is a bit of an issue with homogenizing so many different identities into two very general categories. Historically, lesbian gender identities (as well as queer people in general) have been grouped together for cultural, political, and academic purposes, despite there being a huge variation in identity, presentation, and community practises. While these identities all subvert the mainstream gender and sexual structures of Western society, they all have a range of different practises, ideologies, and performances. Additionally, butch and femme are lesbian genders used by relatively few people, and lesbian as a label also does not include other cultural perspectives on gender and sexual identity. In academic studies on lesbian identity, many do not take other WLW or other gendered attraction into account (whether that be those who are not women, who experience multiple gendered attraction, or otherwise do not identify as lesbian), and also do not note the other categories which play into identity-building, such as racialisation, class, age, (dis-)ability, and so on. Keep these issues in mind when reading my posts, or others' works on lesbian gender identity.

blog references page

[setabane]

The Beauty of Queer Intimacy and Love: Relationships outside the Binary

This captivating series maneuvers around the beauty of everyday queer life and the documentation of queer love (platonic, romantic and of-self). A dialogue that contains a cinematography-focused visual aesthetic on tender and gentle moments with main inspirations from Clifford Prince King, Ryan McGinley and Ryan Pfluger.

Words: Cassim Cassim 

The next story in this ongoing series is a celebration of the wonder and potential of trans bodies to push at boundaries of how society views gender, sexuality and relationships.

Empowering and necessary, this amateur homemade shows the beauty of how trans and gender non-confirming people deserve to feel brave, beautiful, loved and sexy.

The dating dynamic in our society is largely focused on cis-heteronormative society, which produces a distinct erasure of the experiences that nonbinary people face romantically. There is no narrative created where trans and non-binary, including people within the grey sexual community, that shows that they experience basic intimate relationships and romance. ‘Whether it's dating apps that lack appropriate gender options, transphobic partners who don't validate your identity, or mis-gendering based on appearance, there can be a lot of obstacles for nonbinary people who aren't recognized by cisgender people.’

This series documents how authentic and beautiful a relationship is with a non-binary person. Setabane had the luxury of speaking to Pixie and Junior about their everyday lives in Botswana as a queer couple.

1. What is your idea of intimacy? 

(P) My idea of intimacy is being able to cuddle on even the hottest of days, watching shows together while eating our favourite comfort food,  having tea or coffee together, sharing whatever snack the other is eating and downloading and playing games together. Discovering things and showing each other funny tweets or Instagram videos. Intimacy to me is the little things we do when we're spending time together because we're in our little bubble and just being. 

(J) Intimacy for me is rewatching your favourite shows or movies whenever you’re at wits end with not knowing what to watch, knowing what the other wants whenever you enter a room without them, sharing tea, coffee and snacks, spending time together sharing stories about yourselves family and discovering things that you find funny interesting or curious about. 

2. How do you find solace in navigating romance as a queer couple? 

(P) I think about how we're not the only ones navigating this and that we've got each other. It’s just about us and not anyone else. What's comforting is that this romance has its own uniqueness and it's beautiful to see it grow and mature. 

(J)  I remember that in as much as society can label us and give us these names, at the end of the day it’s her and I in the relationship. Two people who before they have to navigate who they are and what they mean to the world, have to not only navigate who they are and what they mean to each other, but firstly and most importantly who they are. And what they mean to themselves. 

3. What is your love language? 

(P) physical touch is right at the top of my list. I'm super duper affectionate and I am always touching Junz (Junior). Limbs are always entangled, a hand is being held or we're cuddling. It’s like a veil of love, no matter how small. Quality time comes second and being made or given food comes third. 

(J) My love language would be quality time, but to be specific, the quality time usually involves watching series or movies, playing games together, painting, writing photoshoots, etc. Basically I like growing, creating, and exploring with Pix. After quality time it’s physical touch which basically goes hand in hand with the quality time tbh. 

4. What is your definition of reciprocation ?

(P) my definition of reciprocation is the ability to match the energy, love and effort that's being given to you the best way you can. It doesn't have to be the exact same actions as the person giving them to you but in your own special way to show that you love this person as much as they love you. 

(J) When I think reciprocation I think of giving yourself to someone and not in some Hollywood sense. Falling in love with someone is being loved, and knowing and feeling that you don’t want to hold back and have no reason to and you believe in this person, and want as much for them as they want for you. 

5. What is your favourite thing, physically and emotionally, about your partner? 

(P) Physically, it's the baby's smile and their face. I spend a lot of time staring at Junz' face because it makes my heart skip a beat. I never get tired of it. Emotionally, they're so tender, kind and caring. I am so grateful for that and I think about it so often how lucky I am that my life crossed paths with theirs. 

(J) Physically I would say, her eyes, her smile, her hands, and if it counts how her skin feels to touch. Emotionally, I love that she never thinks twice about helping those she cares about and always puts loved ones first and she is someone you can trust and rely on. But somehow I have to say that I don’t have favourites really, because all of her is my favourite inside and out. 

6. (pixxie) Have you found any difficulties dating a non-binary person? 

Just the usual misgendering of Junior's pronouns. It’s hard bc people don't understand why Junior prefers they/them pronouns no matter how you explain it. I guess I could add that people are lazy and dismissive because they don't really have to put in that effort to discover themselves. 

7. In your own words, what does it take to be in love with a person? 

(P) You have to be honest, vulnerable, considerate and have the ability to healthily communicate. You gotta be their rock and safety net. I wish I could list everything but the biggest one I feel is important is that you should feel safe and that you have found your best friend in your partner.

(J) it's difficult and impossible to say because we all fall in love so many times in our lives, and because of how different we all are I can’t even begin to think what it takes to love someone but I think I’d say to love and to be loved, is something that’s just human nature, it doesn’t have to be taught it just is, and will be, we are all worthy of love.

Credits: 

Models: @bbypumpkiiiin_ & @vandeaarde​.gallery 

Photographers: Both

[aroacepagans]

Alright so the survey on aro community needs from this post got 30 responses, and with it all being long form I don’t expect to get many more.

So what I’m going to do is give summaries of common themes and answers above the cut for people who don’t want to read through a bunch of text, and then I’m going to put individual answers under the cut for folks who are interested. Please note that these are all anonymous survey answers, and they do not necessarily reflect my opinions. I encourage people to have/start discussions around the topics brought up here so that we can work towards having a mutually fulfilling and cohesive community. 

Summary: 

 What are the community needs of alloaros?

More recognition and visibility both within and outside of the aspec community, aro specific spaces where no one will assume that they’re ace and where they don’t have to be bombarded by ace content, safe spaces to talk about their experiences with sexual attraction, and a wider community acknowledgment that ace and aro don’t mean the same thing. 

What are the community needs of aroaces?

Separate aroace spaces, space and language that allows them to express the interconnectedness of their aro and ace identities, a recognition of the diversity of aroace experiences including the experiences of oriented aroaces and aro leaning aroaces, spaces devoid of both sex and romance, and less infighting between the aro and ace communities. 

What are the community needs of non-SAM aros?

New language that doesn’t enforce the use of SAM as a norm and that doesn’t enforce a SAM/ non-SAM binary, more recognition of aromantic as one whole identity, more inclusion of their identity within aro spaces, and having the ability to label themselves as aro without being asked what their other identity is . 

What are the community needs of greyro/ aro-spec folks?

Specific spaces where they can talk about aromantic attraction, more recognition and visibility both within and outside of the aspec community, more greyro/aro-spec specific resources and content, and a larger platform within the aspec community to discuss their experiences.  

What are the shared needs of these different subgroups within the aro and arospec community?

Increased visibility, spaces free from amatonormativity, safe and unbiased shared spaces for all members of the aro/aro-spec community, separation and distinction from alloaces, more in-person spaces, and a building of understanding and acceptance between the different community subgroups.  

How do we meet all of these needs within an online space?

Better and more formalized tagging systems, creating more forums, chats, tags, etc, that are specific to different aro and arospec subgroups, creating more variety in online aro spaces generally, giving equal online spaces and platforms to all aro subgroups, and having open and polite community discussion about our needs within online aro spaces. 

How do we meet all of these needs within an in-person space?

Use inclusive language, allow for smaller sub-communities within larger aro and aspec groups, provide resources for small, lesser known identities both within groups and at pride, push for more aro inclusion in wider queer spaces and create safe and respectful discussion spaces where everyone can voice their needs  

How do we reconcile conflicting needs?

Civil and open discussions, try to find solutions instead of just arguing, and create separate spaces for subgroups when needed while continuing to maintain larger general spaces for discuison and community building. 

Individual answers:

What are the community needs of alloaros?

1. A space to be aromantic but not asexual. As an alloaro myself, I struggle to relate to many aroaces - and the ace community in general - because my sexuality is a big part of my identity, right along side being aromantic. I want a place where I can discuss how being aromantic affects my sexual attraction without having to focus on one or the other

2.  A place to talk about sexual attraction without being ridiculed or being called a player. Advice about how to go about getting a relationship that fulfills their needs without be demeaned to expected to evolve into romantic.

3.  I'm not alloaro, so I don't feel comfortable speculating on their behalf, but from the perspective of an outsider looking in, they need more visibility, both within and outside of the aro community.

4.  Recognition mostly, acknowledging that asexuals can’t keep putting their stuff into the aro tag, the fact that romance repulsed allo aros exist and are uncomfortable with allo aces putting their stuff everywhere

5.  Aro specific places. I personally don't have to talk about sexuality in general areas but aroallo specific places/sites/tags for this would be great.

6.  Dismantling the assumption that aromanticism is inherently linked to asexuality (even if it is for some individuals, it's most definitely not a hard rule that applies to everybody else), moving away from seeing aroace as the "default" aro experience and in fact not assuming one's other possible identities because they identify as aro at all

7.  Not one myself - probably spaces to find safe hook-ups if desired, to talk amongst themselves

8.  Less ace experience talking over aro experience. Also, not conflating the two identities as one.

9.  I often feel ashamed of the allo part of my identity. I think more visibility would help a lot. It also took a very long time for me to even consider being aro because I was under the impression I had to be ace so separating those ideas would help.

10.  As I’m not allo aro I can’t really say, but a lot of them have been speaking out and saying that they don’t want aro to automatically mean aroace, and that aromantism is not a sub sexuality is asexual

11.  To talk about alloaro specific issues freely, and to not be assumed to be ace or to have to leave our sexualities at the door when entering aro spaces

12.  Increased awareness that one can experience sexual attraction without romantic attraction

13.  To be respected and given a aro-specific space/platform to discuss their needs/issues/etc

14.   A space to not be: assumed ace, confused with aces, forced to avoid talking about how they want sex without romance and how that sexual desire affects them, etc. A space where they can find others like them to help them understand themselves better and make friendships and feel less isolated.

15.  i'm not alloaro so i'm not going to speak for them but like. acknowledging that aro does not mean ace and allowing the aro community to exist outside of the ace umbrella is super important

What are the community needs of aroaces?

1.  Recognition that aro is an equal and completely it's own community but that the community doesn't have to be completely separated.

2.  Separated areas where uniquely aroace experiences can be discussed

3.  Less infighting between the aromantic and asexual communities. You can and should call out hurtful behavior by the other community, but going into isolation mode leaves aroaces stuck in the middle of two sides retreating in on themselves. Aroace issues are aro issues! Aroace issues are ace issues!

4.  Acknowledging that we occupy a unique overlap between the aro and ace communities that no other perioriented people experience (if we can even call ourselves perioriented, since we're basically forced to straddle two communities or else have one aspect of our identity erased); having spaces where we can talk about our aroaceness without having to separate out our identities, when we often can't

5.  Well if you mean just "aroaces" who use it as one word for a convergent orientation they need a place where mixing up and "confusing" an experience as related to their aromanticism when it's more about being ace doesn't get aros yelling at them in the Tumblr tags that they shouldn't tag it aromanticism and they're stupid/horrible hurting aros when they do. They need a place where they can talk about their experiences as very interconnected and inseparable without offending people for whom they are separable. They likely mostly want to learn from allo aros and allo aces what it feels like to be allo so they better understand more of society and don't want to feel alienated from either community of aces as a whole or aros as a whole.

6.  I just want some safe wholesome space. Since I joined the aro community on tumblr couple years back, it just feels like the community is defined by discourse, negativity, fights, petty disagreements and drama. I understand, the community is still in diapers and we need to figure ourselves out, but I feel like we've lost the way. Do we need to react to every troll and hater? Is seriously someone offended by them? Why do we legitimise and acknowledge them as part of the discussion? It's like giving an equal platform to scientists and flat earthers. Is this really how we want to be? If you try to think away all the drama stuff, what's left? Is there anything left at all?

7.  The freedom to find their place in both ace/aro spaces and for people to allow them to use/not use the SAM as they see fit. Perhaps giving non-SAM aroaces some new language?

8.  More community for aro aces. As an aro ace myself I always have to divide time between the aro and ace communities

9.  a space where both identities are recognised as equally important - a space where aro identity isn't seen as a subset of ace identity, or deriving from it - somewhere they can express romance and sex repulsion or lack of thereof

10.  A term that isn’t AroAce. Something that is not just a combination of aromantic and asexual. But to also not be a sub set of allo aro or allo ace. We shouldn’t need to choose which identity is more important and we shouldn’t have to use the SAM.

11.  I think to recognize that there is an aroace spectrum. You can be mlm, wlw, nblnb, etc and still be aroace

12.  Content that doesn't rely on "but we still experience x attraction!", tips for living alone/single, also tips for finding/being in a committed relationship such as a qpr (I personally want a relationship but I have no idea how to even start looking for one)

13.  I am not aroace so my opinion should not carry as much weight as others but from what my aroace friends irl say, I think we need more recognition for oriented aroaces

14.  To be able to talk about the intersection of our identities and how we are uniquely impacted by aphobia

15.  Understanding that not all aroaces feel that their two identifiers hold equal value to them (e.g. aromantic as a primary identity with asexuality as a secondary identity). Letting people focus on the one identity over the other is not an exclusion on the other identity; their preferred identity is just more meaningful in their lifes and/or personal growth.

16.  Available spaces that are not only sexualised spaces (eg clubs), options to avoid discussion of sex, being hit on if desired (colour code in mixed irl aro-spaces?)

17.  Aroaces need a space where they don't have to pick between their aro and ace identities, as well as a space where sex and/or romance repulsed aroaces dont have to deal with romance or sex in any way

18.  Idk, not aro ace but I would say recognition as well

19.  Full disclosure, I've mostly stopped participating in the ace/aro communities of late (though I haven't stopped reading it) because it felt like every time aroaces spoke up, we were brushed aside or shrugged off because we were the "privileged" ones (in both aro and ace circles). That means I'm a bit out of the loop. I identify far more with my aromanticism than my asexuality, but I've definitely been made to feel that I'm somehow a negative influence on both communities because I technically belong to both. I feel bad enough discussing my identity outside of the ace and aro communities, particularly among queer friends - it feels like when I bring up aroace experiences, it's like I've doused the fire of whatever conversation I was in, and I don't feel like replicating that feeling by trying to talk about it on the 'net, too. So, I guess we mostly need acceptance. We need spaces where alloaros can talk about their experiences without feeling bombarded by aroaces, we need spaces where aroaces can talk about our experiences without feeling like we're marauding on allo experiences, and we need places where both sides can talk about our aromanticism as one community. We as aroaces need to do better about determining when to discuss our issues, and making sure we're discussing them within the communities they're relevant to, as well. I have a pretty solid handle on which aspects of my identity are informed by my aromanticism and which are informed by my asexuality, but that's not a universal experience. Plenty of people have issues separating the two, especially when they're missing both sexual AND romantic attraction. It's hard to determine which of those "missing" pieces are supposed to fit where, and it's important to understand and find a place for these people to post, as well. But ultimately there needs to be more acceptance and openess all around. And I have no idea how we can do all of this.

20.  Often aro and ace-ness are inseparable to aroaceness and thus unless something is very specifically about sexual attraction aroaces need to have a sense of flexibility

21.  Honestly, as a greyro-ace myself, I feel like aroaces are sort of the face of the community

What are the community needs of non-SAM aros?

1.  it's all in the name 'non-SAM' for me. that it is assumed everyone has multiple attractions and/or labels themselves by them. it's use rather implies that the words aro or aromantic or aro-spec /don’t/ automatically include us. it's obviously a perspective change needed here, maybe a new term or descriptor as well? i don’t kno really but i hate the specification of — the expected /need to/ specify — non-SAM.

2.  I'm gonna skip the other Qs b/c I don't think I can speak for SAM-using folks. Anyway, as a non-SAM aro I think some of my big things are 1. Recognizing that aromanticism can be its own identity without being split or modified 2. Ending the default assumption that I am ace, identify as ace, and know what the heck ace people need in their communities. 3. Recognizing and respecting aros who don't want or desire QPPs and making it clear that non-QPP friendships and family are not only as good as but can be just as fulfilling as other relationship models. 4. Including non-SAM people as part of our basic and default definitions of asexuality and aromanticism. 5. Making space for discussions of why microlabels don't work for everyone and why the SAM doesn't work for everyone 6. Making an active effort to make aspec spaces more accessible to folks who have just learned about aspec stuff, folks with cognitive and language disabilities, and non-native English speakers. And, like on a broad note, my autism makes it difficult for me to break my identity into tiny pieces. The aspec community's focus on microlabels and the split attraction model, plus the fact that the people participating in discussions often seem to be younger than me and just barely in the process of developing an identity that I've been comfortable in for many years, makes me feel isolated and alienated from the community. When I do participate, the complex and high-entry-level jargon that some members of the community use make it difficult for me to participate in community interactions, which leaves me feeling even more alienated.

3.  again, not speaking over other people, but it's important to recognize that aromanticism is a full identity on its own and doesn't inherently require use of the SAM. breaking down the alloaro/aroace binary

4.  It seems they want to just talk about aromanticism without having people judge which type of aro they are for if their views count etc. They want more than anyone for aces to be better allies when it comes to LGBTQIA arguing where the A doesn't mean Ally and rather asexual that there needs to be room for the queerness of aromanticism in the LGBTQ+ umbrella. They more than anyone will always need aromantic specific everything - recognition, representation, communities, where no one expects you to also be something else

5.  For myself, mostly non binary language and less assumptions that all aros ID with the SAM would be helpful, also acknowlement that non-SAM aros may have differing experiences as a group. This sounds small, and honestly it is, but the unintended consequence of binary language addressing only 'aroaces' and 'aroallos' that I've seen is that spaces can become increasingly polarized between different split attractions and then I've just kind of slipped through the gap in between. It's just my personal experience, of course, but honestly just including this box in the survey is a great start.

6.  In-space focuses and new language.

7.  More awareness

8.  A space where we don't feel the need to express ace/allo identity alongside our aro identity

9.  To not get caught in an alloaro Vs aroace war that they can't pick a side for, is probably one.

10.  We just need ppl to stop kind of adding us in a sentence in their post or say 'not everyone uses the sam' I wish we could have more discussions on why the sam doesn't really work for us or how we're left out from the community as a whole.

11.  Acceptance of just being aro. Aromantic is a whole independent identity despite where it was born.

12.  A space to talk about how the ace community has harmed them or made them feel unwelcome without aroaces or alloaces acting like it is an insult

What are the community needs of greyro/ aro-spec folks?

1.  Understanding that not everyone is completely aro or that their romantic attraction levels change.

2.  providing spaces to talk about experiences with romantic attraction/relationships

3.  I'm in this group. I need to feel like it's ok that aromanticism stay a spectrum and some aros are "more ace" (I'm sex-averse etc) than clearly aro (I might choose to date) and to not feel like people are accusing me of being alloromantic when I don't feel alloro. If people make sweeping statements about aros that don't include me or sweeping statements about alloros that do cover my experiences, it is hurtful and invalidating of my identity. And it even can make me doubt myself which isn't fair after I've spent years figuring myself out. I want a happy community that can get along and not hate aces preemptively before any of the select aces they're talking to did anything wrong. Who can forgive aces who make mistakes but who want to be better allies. I'm an ace and an aro-spec person. I'm an ally to aros who aren't gray but all forms of people being an ally takes some learning curve. Understanding that can go a long way.20 hours agoMore awareness21 hours agomore discussion about our orientations, more material for us in general, people getting a platform to share heir experiences. i feel kind of isolated in the aro community because there isnt a lot thats directed at us and our experiences that are neither really aro nor alloa day ago- a space where romance repulsion and simultaneous lack of thereof is acknowledgeda day agoIdk I'm not on the speca day agoMore content for the smaller identities under the spectrum umbrella would probably be nice, also asexuality being jammed together with aromanticism can be annoying sometimes especially if the post only really has to do with one or the other. Visibility in stories and media and such would also be greata day agoacknowledge that not everyone is strictly ace or allo. Like alloaros, allow us to talk about whether we want romantic partners or how our experiences differ from non grayro aros.a day agoN/aa day agoTheir own voice for their complicated feelings about being on the aromantic spectrum.a day agoNot greyro, likewise not my place to comment.2 days agoThe aro community is actually already pretty good about this, but it's cool that romance still happens for some of us and that out voices are allowed to at the very least be on our own space without criticism.2 days agoUh2 days agoArospecs need to be able to talk about their approach to romance, as it is very often very separate from the way allo people experience romantic attraction2 days agoI think both grey and demi aromanticism and asexuality in general need more recognition 2 days ago

4.  More awareness

5.  more discussion about our orientations, more material for us in general, people getting a platform to share heir experiences. i feel kind of isolated in the aro community because there isnt a lot thats directed at us and our experiences that are neither really aro nor allo

6.  a space where romance repulsion and simultaneous lack of thereof is acknowledged

7.  More content for the smaller identities under the spectrum umbrella would probably be nice, also asexuality being jammed together with aromanticism can be annoying sometimes especially if the post only really has to do with one or the other. Visibility in stories and media and such would also be great

8.  acknowledge that not everyone is strictly ace or allo. Like alloaros, allow us to talk about whether we want romantic partners or how our experiences differ from non grayro aros.

9.  Their own voice for their complicated feelings about being on the aromantic spectrum.

10.  The aro community is actually already pretty good about this, but it's cool that romance still happens for some of us and that out voices are allowed to at the very least be on our own space without criticism.

11.  Arospecs need to be able to talk about their approach to romance, as it is very often very separate from the way allo people experience romantic attraction

12.  I think both grey and demi aromanticism and asexuality in general need more recognition

What are the shared needs of these different subgroups within the aro and arospec community?

1.  what we need across the board is recognition, compassion, and dissemination.

2.  More aro recognition and its own and equal but not completely seperate from ace (for aro aces) community.

3.  To discuss their experiences with the lack of romantic attraction and amatonormativity, amongst other General arospec issues

4.  safe spaces to talk about being aro and all of the ways it intersects with other aspects of our identity; representation and advocacy

5.  Neutral aro-spec spaces where all intersectionality is equally accepted but also not the main topic or qualifier; recognition of a broad range of experiences; recognition of specific language and acknowledgment of their existences; facilitated ability to speak about more specific or 'niche' topics

6.  Recognition in queer spaces and healthy dialogue about language.

7.  i think we all want a platform for our specific topics and we want recognition, but also community

8.  A space where romance repulsion is acknowledged and respected - a space where aro identity is prioritised, no matter what other identities go along with it, if there are any at all

9.  To move forward in our activism to make aromanticism more well known and more accepted in society?? And to have a safe place to go after a day of dealing with amatonormativity and aphobia.

10.  To make ourselves exist outside the definition of asexual

11.  I think all the communities/identities need to recognize that there is a problem. If we unite with each other and have so much love and understanding in the form of unity, I think a lot of these problems will resolve themselves.

12.  Visibility?

13.  make sure we understand each other's experiences and what makes everyone feel included / excluded. We need to make that we sure we own up if we excluded someone, and that we try to fix it.

14.  Visibility is my greatest concern for all aspects of aro and arospec problems.

15.  Aces need to stop speaking for them. Aro-spec and aro people can speak for themselves on their own experiences. Additionally, aroaces need to focus more on the aro identity (whether it's primary or secondary to them) when it involves aro discourse. They can have a focus on their ace identity only with the exception that both identities are heavily tied to each other and both identities are discussed. Again, this is specifically for aro-specific discourse.

16.  Discussion of amatonormativity, experiences with pressure to find partners

17.  A creation of a unified aro space that includes and supports *anybody* identifying as aro or arospec

18.  The validity of aro identities shaping gender identities. I believe I'm nb in large part because of aromanticism.

19.  All four of these groups need visibility and more in person communities

20.  Allo aces need to stop taking over everything is the overarching problem when you think about it, they also need to stop throwing aros under the bus

21.  We ALL need more visibility. We need voices that aren't reliant on the ace community to speak for us as an afterthought, and I say that AS an ace. We need to talk about aromanticism as a whole. And we need to do so proudly and informatively. I've noticed that it's really, really hard to talk about aromanticism without making it sound like I'm demonizing romantic attraction, and that's a dangerous treading ground within the queer community. There's been a lot of negatively portraying queer romantice from outside of the community, and we need to make sure we're not stepping on those land mines, but we do need our voices heard on aromanticism and amatonormativity, too. Also, we need to hold fast to QPRs and squishes (and, imo, aplatonic) and not let those ideas get swept out with the discourse trash. We also need to support both the aros who want and have QPRs, and the aros who want nothing to do with them. I see a lot of support for aros in various forms of non-romantic (and sometimes romantic) relationships, but very little for aros who choose to fly solo, and what that means in a world that expects you to pair up.

22.  I do think we need to be more openly vocal about our separateness from the ace community, though it seems to be tearing aroaces apart at the seams

23.  A space to discuss aromanticism - however people experience it - in a space were others are opening and welcoming. Possibly also older members of the community giving advice to newer members who are struggling to come to terms with their aromanticism in a society so focused on romance

24.  I feel like a lot of aros are frustrated with their experiences being mislabeled as ace experiences, or having the assumption that aro and ace experiences are basically the same

How do we meet all of these needs within an online space?

1.  make sure you aren’t in an echochamber? share/create content for orientations other than your own? be kind? remember that when we're fighting it's kind of over scraps and we deserve better? i'm not sure honestly but i really think a lot of this comes down to perspective. plus remember the block button exists lol. i'm talking about things all on a personal, individual level and i don’t kno how to effect anything otherwise. how about a content creation week where the subject is an orientation other than your own? with emphasis on asking questions to get shit right. it'd be a learning experience that builds community. i can't think of a thing to answer this question on a larger scale ://

2.  We accept that some people see their aro and/or ace identitie/s seperate and some don't. Also that some only have one of these identities. And we spread aro recognition.

3.  Equal education and resources for all parts of the aro spectrum

4.  Cut it out with the pack instinct. Aces and aros snarling at eachother really freaks out aroaces. 

5.  it's impossible to curate a monolithic online space that will meet the needs of every single member of the aro community. what's important is acknowledging your own biases and hearing out the perspectives of others who differ from you, and not generalizing your own experiences/needs/perspectives to the community as a whole. we can create more subgroup-oriented spaces all we want, but at the end of the day we're still part of the same larger aro community and in order for that to work out the best thing we can do is just listen to each other. 

6.  Appropriate tagging has been brought up before, perhaps a reworked umbrella tag system? Again more neutral spaces; appropriate tagging for repulsion and aversion and on the other end acceptance of a variety of topics (i.e. some people will be talking about sex and that's good and healthy, as long as it's tagged there shouldn't be an issue with that); more specific and intersectional spaces; less verbal conflation of ace and aro though I think that's been getting better? Then again a big problem is the aroace split between two communities. I unfortunately do not have any ideas for that 

7.  Provide and Aro-specific online space similar to AVEN. 

8.  trying to give a more equal focus to different subgroups maybe? coming together and caring about those whose experiences are slightly different from ours and giving them a platform too. encouraging diversity 

9.  i'm not sure but it starts by making spaces outside of discourse. blogs like "aro-soulmate-project" are especially important to me because they address not only intra and outside community issues, but because they create aro identity at the same time people interact. 

10.  Idk put everything in the tag it belongs in (aroace content in aro, ace and aroace tags, general aro content in aro aroace and alloaro tags, and alloaro content in aro and alloaro tags, etc) and stop harassing each other. Groups might benefit from ace chat channels and allosexual chat channels? But idk if that's too divisive in some opinions 

11.  Group chats? More posts combining the communities? Spreading the love to everybody everywhere! 

12.  Open discussion 

13.  Since aro communities are extremely small and have been largely ignored-even by the a-spec community-it is up to the a-spec (yes, this includes alloaces) community to be more inclusive when making a-spec positive/information posts while also making more efforts to reblog diverse aro discourse so that aro people get a chance to speak. 

14.  Different tags/ smaller chatrooms. Probably tags people can follow or block 

15.  Better tagging systems, breaking down assumptions and not projecting one's one experience of identity onto everybody else who happens to be aro, creating sub-communities that are specifically suited for a specific subgroup's needs while still being united as the general aro community 

16.  On tumblr, proper tagging of content. 

17.  I think something that would actually help is like an aroace specific forum. We have arocalypse but that seems to be mostly alloaros and I want a forum where I can be aroace and not have to pick sides 

18.  Tag things accordingly 

19.  As I mentioned before, I'm not really involved in community discussions beyond reading about them, but coming up with a standard tagging system seems to be a start. 

20.  Often these needs have been met, though there could be a better job of say tagging 'romance' for repulsed aros and we need to open up space for both romo repulsed and positive to speak at the same time 

21.  I don't know. The internet is too big to manage. I think of the internet as more of many different spaces

How do we meet all of these needs within an in-person space?

1.  Represent everyone, let people speak, let people correct you, aim to make friends, remember that we're all under the A together.

2.  Same as above

3.  Stop generalizing and start being inclusive with language. There’s a big difference.

4.  Listen, if no one ever walks up to me and says "Hey, [name], you're ace right?" just because I told them I was aro and they forgot, I will be happy.

5.  i suppose the same rules apply. listening, providing spaces for subgroups to talk about specific issues, etc.

6.  Similar to previous answer, but spaces advertised as neutral or with multiple groups need to be more explicit in inclusion of a variety of experiences and topics. There are ways to manage this so everyone is in understanding and comfortable, namely just good communication (hence being explicit) and systems of feedback

7.  Queer spaces just need to be informed that the usual a-spec narrative is not the only one. But this will change as people share their experiences.

8.  more aro awareness alongside but also differentiated from ace awareness, and all this coupled with a focus on acceptance rather than identification

9.  A case by case basis? I guess? It'd depend on the scope of the space

10.  Booths at Pride recognizing the lesser known orientations. Doesn’t even have to be booths! Pins, stickers, t-shirts work just fine. Maybe a logo for a-spec, aro-spec, and aroace staying that we are all united.

11.  have info that includes all of us eg. pamphlets don't have the ace flag everywhere and acknowledge that their are aspecs who experience romantic or sexual attraction, and that not everyone uses the sam.

12.  I have only come across one aspec space in-person but it is in the form of a discussion group and everyone is allo ace so I feel extremely unwelcome. I wish there were more resources about aromanticism I could bring to these groups.

13.  For one: language is important. Renaming everything to a-spec meetups/groups instead of ace meetups/groups makes the other identity more welcomed and higher possibilities of growing the community. Again, there are more aces out there than aros at the moment, so it is up to those ace groups to make it more inclusive to all a-spec people. We're a community in this together wheter you feel a certain identity or not. That's what being Queer's all about.

14.  Create an aro-space first... Then events for sub-groups only where they can talk amongst themselves but also community events

15. Have a large variety of arospec spaces to choose from so that everyone can have their needs met

16.  Talk about all aspects, let people voice their experiences and find common ground

17.  I don't participate in in-person communities. Partly because I'm not out to more than just a few friends, and partly because I wouldn't want to go to one and be the stereotypical aroace. I feel both far too representative of both the aro and ace communities, and also not part of either. And thanks to the discourse, I'm not convinced I'd be welcome at a queer meetup at all. In addition, I've already mentioned before that just bringing up my experiences as either an ace or an aro tends to be a conversation-killer. So, I guess it rolls back around to visibility. Making others aware of our existence so that when aro experiences DO come up in in-person conversations, we can avoid the uncomfortable, awkward silences that follow. And I think that can only be done by talking about them.

18.  I'll eat my hat the day that I manage to find a sizable in-person space for aces or aros

How do we reconcile conflicting needs?

1.  I believe this question is far too subjective to each instance that has and will pop up. Which is no help unfortunately.

2.  We accept that sometimes someone needs these needs and someone else needs other needs. Also we ask what people's needs are before we assume their needs.

3.  By talking out our issues civilly and talking about what bothers us so we can accommodate and adapt as needed if needed, and filter out people who just make the community toxic.

4.  Live and let live. Talk it out. Find a solution rather than growing increasingly angry. Literally anything that’s not cocooning away in indignation, we are supposed to be a community.

5.  i don't think our needs actually conflict, for the most part. with the exception of greyro/arospec folks needing space to talk about romance and romance repulsed folks needing to get away from it. but that can be solved by tagging things (at least in the case of online spaces). i think a lot of our perceived conflict comes from the conflation of different issues. for example, giving alloaros room to exist apart from asexuality and giving aroaces room to navigate that awkward space in between aren't inherently mutually exclusive. i recognize that striking that sort of balance is easier said than done, but i think if it were easy we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. we're a diverse population and our needs are ALWAYS going to differ. but we're also always going to overlap in a lot of ways, which is why the aro community exists to begin with.

6.  Imagine you have a spoiled child. You can do everything in your power to give them what they need. Do you think it will be ever enough? Oh, but what's worse, by concentrating on the spoiled child, you completely forgot you have a second one, starving in the corner.

7.  Give each person a choice in the language they use and don't force anyone into an identity/stereotype of aspec experience that doesn't fit. Just listen to people.

8.  By giving space for both and working out compromises or plans of action

9.  Definitely not fuckin argue for weeks and attack one another, discourse only fragments our tiny movement

10.  Set up a time for when allo aro can talk about their experience and the way their identities interact. This lets aroace choose whether they want to come or not. The usual meeting should be a time where any aroace, allo aro, and non-sam using aro can talk about being aro. Or for aros to just meet and interact.

11.  a group discussion where everyone can share their experiences but also safe spaces for aroaces / alloaces / nonsam aros /grayros to talk so ppl can discuss if someone hurt them or made them feel excluded in the group discussion and so they can talk about things that are specific to their smaller communities

12.  Open discussion and properly tagging things

13.  Aro people have been patient. Ace and ace-spec people need to recognize that their exclusive behaviors are mirroring the same horrible mentality that exclusionists in the LGBT+ have. Also recognize that ignoring (or consistently forgetting) the identity is a form of the excluding that identity in regards to posts that are suppose to be a-spec/Queer/LGBTIA+ positive/informative.

14.  Respect and communication, separate spaces when necessary

15.  Creating sub-communities that can prioritize a specific group's needs in that space while not conflicting with the general aro community.

16.  Idk like listen to eachother?

17.  The people who have a problem avoid? Idk

18.  honestly don't know. I absolutely understand the frustrations of alloaros getting ace posts in the aro tags, and I understand the frustrations of aroaces posting their experiences and being told those tags don't belong. I think the ace community as a whole needs to be made aware that the aro tag is not a dumping ground for ace-specific posts, and that if they want to include support and positivity and include the aro tag, then the post needs to INCLUDE US. I think a lot of frustration on all sides right now is that aromanticism comes off as asexuality's afterthought, and I don't think any of us as aros feel that way. I don't think we need a full break from the ace community, and I think we need to stop blaming aroaces when we make relevant posts to the aro tag, since I suspect quite a bit of this issue is from people who legitimately don't realize that aro tags are not the same as ace tags (i.e. ace positivity blogs that post something relevant to ace experiences and think they're being inclusive by "including" aros, because "we're all aspec, just swap out the 'sexual attraction' for 'romantic attraction'!"). But I, as an ace, am of the opinion that the ace community as a whole needs a solid kick in the pants to get them to work with us on cleaning up the tags and acknowledging that aros aren't just aces with a word swap, that we have our own significantly different concerns and ways to navigate the world that aces can't understand. But here's the problem, too. The ace community is one of the larger "aro" voices right now because the aro community is really quiet. Yes, we have our voices, but if you go looking for ace spaces, you find them. You find them in spades. You go looking for aro spaces? You have to dig. You almost have to know what you're looking for before you can find it. I see aros submitting asks on ace blogs, asking where to go to find aro-specific blogs, and there's always only a handful of suggestions. I think a lot of the reason aroaces seem so visible is because we -are- in the ace spaces, talking, and the ace spaces are big. The aromantic community's biggest priority right now is to grow and be heard.

19.  fuck idk tbh the most we can really do is post about it and hope people see and listen

[official-queer]

sooo i figured it’d be helpful for me to make a complete post on my thoughts on pansexual as a label. i've answered a few asks about this and then figured i'd covered it enough, but i realize that i covered separate points in each post/ask. 

i'll try to make it as organized as possible, but y'all know i'm the king of run-on sentences and unnecessarily long statements and restatements. so yeah, this is gonna be a long one, fellas

"bi = two, pan = all"

in reality, the bi identity has always included attraction to all genders. i'm sure you'll've heard it time and time again, but the 1995 bisexual manifesto states very clearly that bi people are not duogamous in their attraction. insisting that bisexuality is only for attraction to cis men and cis women paints bisexuality as transphobic, as well.

the pan label became so popular with the rise of awareness of nonbinary identities because people started to find it important to state they were also attracted to nonbinary people. the whole pan- prefix was specifically picked because people were aware that "nonbinary" was merely a category for those who fell outside of the imposed male-female dichotomy, and under which several hundred genders could fall.

so... bisexual includes all these hundreds of genders, and pansexual specifies these hundreds of genders. seems redundant, but what's the issue?

"some people find the distinction important"

this is a sentiment i've heard brought up as an argument to just leave pan people alone. but i don't find it quite so valid an argument, irony not intended. *why* is the distinction so important? how come one can concede that bi people like all genders too, but you *must* let people know you are the type of "m-spec" who is definitely able to be attracted to all genders?

the idea one can id as pan but still agree that bi people can also feel the same way a pan person does is contradictory. you are attempting to label an experience as x and argue that it's a necessary label, when there was already a label for x and y. the very idea of a "distinction" is to point out how something is *different*. it's completely redundant.

so if bi and pan are the same, is there some other reason why someone would prefer pan over bi?

"attraction regardless of gender"/"hearts not parts"

i'm lumping these two together because, despite sounding like different points, they argue the same thing in the end. it's just that one is more subtle.

when the label of pansexual was in it's formative years, some sought to argue that pan *is* different from bi, because pansexuals do not consider gender when they are gauging attraction to someone. there are several problems with this.

this switches pan from a "who" label (correct usage of a sexuality label, denoting to whom you are attracted, referring to gender), to a "how" label (incorrect usage of a sexuality label, denoting in what circumstances one feels attraction, not accounting for gender). with the other definition of pan, the "who" was simple - anyone of any gender. with this definition, the "how" is now involved, that being without regarding gender.

within normal parameters of a sexuality label, as in, a "who" label, it is functionally the same as the previous definition. you are still attracted to any gender.

just as well, it can be used just as well for a bi person attracted to all genders. many bi people have stated this is exactly how they feel, and so you jump back to the distinction argument. but also, many gay and straight people have also expressed that gender plays no part in *how* they feel their attraction. their attraction may only include one or so gender(s), but beyond that, it's not something that factors in.

many trans and specifically nonbinary people have stated distaste at this definition as it is dismissive of gender. one gets the impression that their gender struggles, growth, identity, etc. is not important to the pan who uses this definition.

specifically in regards to "hearts not parts", a very popular quote around the early years of the pan label - this gives the very strong idea that pan people are claiming that only their sexuality involves being attracted to the important parts of someone; their mind, their soul, their identity beyond gender, etc.. this is just... yuck.

just as well, this further pushes the pretty prevalent idea among mogai/inclus that gay, bi, and straight people are driven solely by sexual desire. while the "hearts not parts" phrase is uniquely pansexual in nature, the sentiment is shared by inclus asexual and other people using "how" labels, such as demisexual and other "a-spec" people. this sentiment is considered pretty homophobic, because while the idea seems to be against gay, bi, *and* straight people, it is weaponized frequently in opposition to gay and bi folk, especially lesbians.

"it's just a preference"

preferences are for flavors of ice cream. i highly doubt one is basing their whole identity on the phonetic sounds of "pan" vs. "bi", or a "prettier flag", or what have you. typically, if one dives deeper into what exactly these "preferences" are, they almost all lead back to misconceptions about bi as a label.

differing community

it's no secret that pansexual people have, at an alarming rate, culminated for themselves a unique culture and community. it's also no secret that a lot of this reeks of the era it was born from - 2009-2012 internet culture - but my distaste is my own.

some argue that their preference for the pan label is simply due to this differing community. some... do not argue this, but it's apparent. what either party doesn't consider is this: stating preference for one community, in this situation, is stating a preference to not be included in the other community.

this is why i say that some pan people, while not consciously aware, adhere to this argument. i was one of these people. this is where you'll have to forgive my heavy reliance on personal anecdote, but i believe it applies.

when i id'd as pan, i realized later that a big portion of my preference for this label stemmed from this mystified idea of the bi community. in my head, subconsciously, i viewed bi people as mature but not too mature, sexy, club-going, drug-using, edgy. i thought i couldn't be one of those people because they were too *cool* (these ideas aren't cool in this regard - they're very common biphobic stereotypes). pansexuals, on the other hand, where nerdy, friendly, meme-loving, sex-positive but not promiscuous. so many of the "fandom moms" we all used to admired had pan in their tumblr description, twitter bio, blog header, etc.. i could relate to this! (emphasis on could... i'm a normal human being now)

you can see these internal biases become very apparent when you see pan people insisting that their preference is "valid", or when you try to get them to explain how they're different from bi people at all. this isn't a matter of "one community or another", or even "one community over another", but "one community over the boogeyman of our idea of their community". and it all becomes so silly when you see how self-imposed this is - all these traits are bi culture! you're bi! you are contributing all this to bi culture, and you only need to shed your internalized biphobia and realize this!

fetishization of trans identities

i touched on this in my first point, but i'll go more in depth here. essentially, the idea that there must be a separate identity for those willing to date nb people, and god forbid if you're even more ignorant, trans men and women, is inherently othering and, in many cases, fetishizing of trans identities.

in my experience, the pan person who recognizes that pan is the same as bi, but who claims they are pan due simply to preference, is actually in the minority. for every pan of this sort i've seen, i've seen 20 more who blatantly believe that they must id as pan, since they would date trans and nb people. i believe this is almost directly related to how many cis people id as pan, as well as a mix of trans+nb people who've been fed this narrative and now believe it to be true. those quirky fandom moms i mentioned? all cis, all iding as pan performatively. the label of pan is an act of defiance in their eyes, the ultimate symbol of trans+nb allyship. and it's so, soooo cringey. i'd rather they be honest and id as "chaser" and be done with it.

if you're one of those people, or someone who believes this distinction is valid, hear me when i say this: TRANS PEOPLE DO NOT WANT YOUR SPECIAL TREATMENT! binary trans men and women want to be included in your overall binary men and women categories. trans men are men, trans women are women. attraction to men includes trans men by default, attraction to women, the same. nb people adjacent to these binary genders (demi-man, genderfluid, trans masc, agender+masc presenting, etc.) like to be included in these categories of attraction on an individual basis! there are gay men who date masc nb people, and lesbians who identify lesbian attraction as attraction to non-men, and vice versa. how can you rectify iding with an identity solely to point out your attraction to these otherwise unincluded (by your standards) categories, all in the name of being for these peoples' desires, while also ignoring their pleas to just be included and normalized within *all* attractions? can you say that gay, straight, lesbian, and pan people can all be attracted to trans+nb people, but not bi people? that's silly! so, in your attempt to be more inclusive, you've actually insisted on further othering us.

i'll add more points if/when they're brought up, or if i remember anything else later. i just got back from work and am quite tired, so.. :,)

[trannysaurus--rex]

Don’t be a Gender Identity Gatekeeper

(Keep scrolling if you already know the definitions of basic queer terms. )

For people who maybe confused I included this handy dandy genderbread person chart. This is a really simple way of explaining gender identity and gender expression, but really it’s more complex than the genderbread person, but it’s a good start.

This is the general consensus on definitions of terms, NOT my opinion and it is NOT a political stance. My existence should not be political. I will make a note of my own thoughts in this post. If I get things wrong please feel free to correct me. Things are being updated all the time by scientists and scholars and as of now this is what I know. The fact that transgender people exist, and gender being a spectrum (like most things) is scientific consensus.

Scientific consensus: Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

Transgenderism has to do with the physical brain, not the psychological mind.

Dysphoria: a state of unease or generalized dissatisfaction with life

Dysphoria is a symptom of a physical difference in the brain, and can manifest itself as psychological disorders such as anxiety and depression when it comes to secondary gender characteristics, how the world perceives a person, and how they are treated by society when mind and body are not in alignment. Dysphoria is a symptom, NOT a clinical disorder, and is multilayered.

It is estimated that about 0.005% to 0.014% of people assigned male at birth and 0.002% to 0.003% of people assigned female at birth would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, based on 2013 diagnostic criteria, though this is considered a modest underestimate.

Trans people have physically different brains than cis people do. So you are either trans or you’re not. You cannot turn trans. You are born that way. You do not choose to be trans, but you do choose whether or not you transition.

Whether or not you decide to transition, and whether or not you suffer from dysphoria, you are trans if you have a trans brain.

(Side note: 🤔 I wonder how many trans brains are out there that don’t feel dysphoria so are there for not symptomatic and they live their lives as a cis person without transitioning.) anyway....

Gender EXPRESSION terms:

Gender expression is how you choose to express your gender within or outside of societal norms.

Terms like androgynous, genderqueer, non-binary, gender non-conforming are about gender expression NOT gender identity. They can coexist with gender identity labels.

(Side note: Anybody can don these labels. If this label were an item of clothing it would be a unisex over shirt. It doesn’t matter if your cis or trans. Most LGBT people fit into this category right of the bat)

Androgynous: partly male and partly female in appearance; of indeterminate sex.

Genderqueer: denoting or relating to a person who does not subscribe to CONVENTIONAL gender distinctions but identifies with neither, both, or a combination of male and female genders.

Conventional: based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed.

Simple Example of non-conventional: a man who likes pink, and wears pink items of clothing.

Non-binary: not relating to, composed of, or involving just two things. Very similar to genderqueer, and gender non-conforming. It is an umbrella term for those who don’t fit in to one of two boxes.

(Side note: non-binary is more of a descriptive word, not an identity, or expression of gender, but it is widely used in place of genderqueer.)

Gender non-conforming: denoting or relating to a person whose behavior or appearance does not conform to prevailing cultural and social expectations about what is appropriate to their gender.

These three terms are tantamount to each other and can be interchangeable or used all together to denote slight differences.

Non-binary gender IDENTITY terms:

These terms cannot co-exist with cis or trans binary gender identity because they don’t fit the definition as it stands today. Some people get these terms mixed up with gender EXPRESSION terms.

Agender: denoting or relating to a person who does not identify themselves as having a particular gender.

gender neutral: suitable for, applicable to, or common to both male and female genders

There are more terms out there. feel free to list them with their definitions!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This can be very confusing to some people. The important thing to remember about all this is that you CANNOT tell someone how THEY identify. You CAN only tell people how YOU identify. Other people’s identities do not effect your own. No two people are going to be the same.... like...dare I say it... like snowflakes. Anyone else remember when that term meant you were unique and beautiful? Ah well, terms change with time because language is constantly evolving. Or I guess devolving in that case. Respect pronouns, Respect people, and live well.

[themusesthrall]

Sounding out views on LGBTQA+ness in...

Yaa: Mostly treated like a weird fetish. No violence about it, but talk of it outside of LBG communities would definitely be met with amusement and used to squick people. Trans people would be met with “oh like the Yinerny?” because Yaa doesn’t have its own social construct to meet that, negative or positive. In fact, their words for trans people would probably translate to “a Yinerny man” regardless of assigned gender or gender identity. Aces would be the most unfathomable thing to Yaa culture, where life is very much considered to be about power and pleasure--and both are considered inextricably sexual.

Tribes of Yinerny: As implied, they aren’t big on gender, let alone a binary... except when it comes to having sex. Namely, they don’t consider any sexual relations outside of penis-vagina penetration to be “real sex.” Perfectly acceptable, but not sex, just pleasure-seeking. (This includes, but is not limited to, gay sex.) Traditional family units are expected to be comprised of a penis-haver and a vagina-haver, who, without question of gender, are expected to make babies, and they are expected not to have “real sex” outside of that construct. However, “pleasure-seeking” outside of the relationship is not considered taboo. Non-traditional family units and a lack of family unit are socially permitted. Given that, aces and aros wouldn’t find themselves under very much pressure to conform, though they wouldn’t likely be particularly understood.

They don’t concern themselves with gender expression, so much, as role expression. Their identities are hunter, soldier, leader, agriculturalist, merchant, craftsman, cook, oral artist, visual artist, pleasure expert, scholar, subsets of everything listed, and more, though those are the big ones. None of it is considered mutually exclusive, though it would be very much frowned upon to express a role you don’t hold.

The Great Graves: The mass of tiny mountain nations are a bit of an ethnic sliding scale between the Yaa and the Yinerny. If there is an independent mountain attitude that seeps up and inserts itself into either worldview, it probably boils down to “If you deviate from the local norm, we’ll beat you up. But if you can give as good as you get, well, that’s pretty cool, wanna hang out?” And deviants (of any stripe, not just gender or orientation,) that made it “in” would likely thenceforth be defended by whoever had previously come at them.

Kapatak Union: A continent of many countries will have many cultures and views, but with their trade union making travel relatively easy and safe, the cultural cross-pollination has been going on so long I feel I can safely divide this into two subcategories...

Inland and Eastern Kapatak: Kapatak is very big on traditional family values, which to them means SETTLE DOWN AND HAVE AS MANY KIDS AS YOU CAN POSSIBLY FEED AND LOVE THEM ALL YAY. They welcome The Gays with open arms, so long as they’ll follow these simple societal rules... 1, look for a partner to settle down with! 2, that done, adopt as many kiddos as possible! Kapatak assumes this is the reason homosexuality and barrenness exist--nature’s provision for orphans. Bi people will confuse them. (What? Wait. Are you a baby-maker or not? If you can make your own babies, you should, it’s great!) Aces and aros probably won’t will be overlooked, and the sex-repulsed of any stripe will be met with the same horrified pity given to the infertile.

(Views on polyamory, cheating, and open relationships differ too much from country to country to explore here. Some countries/regions hold hetero and homosexual family units to the same standard, some don’t.)

Anyone who does not want to have kids... had better be poor enough to justify it in the eyes of public opinion, or else suffer the >:( of the people. Big yikes.

Trans people and the very concept of non-binaryness would tend to boggle them, but as long as the trans person in question was willing to make or take babies, there would be no ill will. Within the (extensive, mage-filled) scientific community of Kapatak, there is study on intersex biology, and the question has arisen of whether to be trans is in fact to be spiritually intersex.

Western Coastal and Island Kapatak: A lot of the above holds, but ideas and blood from Yaa and Yinerny would have met them in the harbors. And ideas, if not blood, from Juwan.

Mynora: Very... categorical, if not quite binary. Quaternion, actually--cis male, trans male, cis female, and trans female are your social options. They’re fairly egalitarian between the four categories, but enbies are out of luck. Gayness is considered an imbalance of power. Like, the way they see it, cis male-female relations and trans male-female relations are standard. Has to do with the way they see sex and romance as an expression of power from both sides--the meeting of equal and opposite forces. So they would see homosexuality as a, a spiritual mismatch. People in same-sex relationships would be very harried about their love lives, regularly under siege by Concerned Friends and Relatives, but physically safe. Not considered gross, or even wrong per say, but worryingly unbalanced. Anything that went wrong in their lives would be blamed on this unbalance. >_>

Interestingly, this is the only society outside of Juwan that has a word and a social place for aro-aces. The term is “saving themselves for battle,” with the concept being that they must have sexual and romantic energy, and if it’s not being thus expressed sexually and romantically, their spirits must be bottling it for another use. The battle-sworn don’t need to express themselves in battle, per say--but they probably will. (Sex and romance are too intertwined, to them, to consider non-aro aces and non-ace aros, alack. By the same token, casual hookups or cheating = Very Taboo.)

After 200 years of violently oppressive serfdom and borderline genocide under the Kapatak, however, many concepts unique to the Mynore’s culture have been lost or near-lost, however.

Juwan: I know the least about the Juwan, who, like the Kapatak, have a continent of multiple nations. Unlike the Kapatak, they are not as united on many things. But I do know that as a (fantasy) race (morphologically, spiritually, and essentially human), they are the most androgynous people in my world, which makes it feel somewhat ironic to me that many of their cultures seem to hold more strongly to distinct gender roles than most of the other cultures--although they do have a “third gender” role into which trans, gender nonconforming, and intersex people of all varieties are thrown indiscriminately together.

Asexuality is both more common and more recognized, and they are culturally aromantic to the point that romantics would be the ones that required a label. Hetero, homo, and bisexuality don’t have any especial judgement passed upon them, so long as everyone involved keeps inside one of the 3 gender roles. One thing common to all Juwan cultures seems to be the idea that anything worth doing is worth becoming absolutely excellent at, so they direct their sex-judgey energy to the question of “are they a good lay?”

~

There’s a lot more to discover, and probably some things to correct, but that’s what I know about that. Why does my first batch of stories have to be set in the Great Graves and Yaa?? Bleh. It is, for geo-political plot reasons, what it is.

[wedontcareaboutyourbinary]

hey so this is kinda complicated for me... but i dont feel like im male or female, agender, or anywhere on the spectrum and i feel like a whole other gender entirely! I go as transmasc w he/him pronouns thou bcus i find thats what it feels closest to. I dont want to use 'third gender' either bcus ik thats a cultural thing (im white) and i wouldnt want to appropriate at all, but there doesnt seem to be any other word for it. Im tempted to make my own term but i know nobody will use/understand it

There are a few things that could work for you!

Proxvir is a gender related to masculinity, but is something separate and entirely on its own. 

Maverique is a gender characterized by autonomy and inner conviction** regarding a sense of self that is entirely independent of male/masculinity, female/femininity or anything which derives from the two while still being neither without gender nor of a neutral gender.

Neutrosis is a gender identity that feels neutral, null, or genderless. Sometimes used interchangeably with agender, as the two definitions overlap.

Abinary is a term for anyone whose gender is completely unrelated to the gender binary (such as agender, quoigender, maverique or most xenogenders). 

Altegender (Pronounced “alt-eh-gender”) is derived from shortening the phrase “alternate existence.” It is a xenogender that feels as though it’s in a parallel dimension, on a different plane, in a mirror universe, or just in an alternate existence. 

Anonbinary is a gender that definitely isn’t binary, but is still even outside of nonbinary. Hence using the ‘a’ like in agender.

Anongender is a gender that is unknown to both yourself and others.

Apogender is a gender identity in which one feels not only genderless, but separate from the entire concept of gender.

Aporagender is a gender separate from man/boy, woman/girl, and anything in between while still having a gendered feeling.

Arigender is a complicated gender identity that you cannot explain or is very hard to explain. A gender that does not fit under any labels. An unfathomable gender.

Pomogender is short for “postmodern”, a way for a person to say that they believe the current vocabulary is not quite complex enough (or diverse enough) to accurately describe their own sense of gender identity.

Ectogender is a gender identity that is elusive, constantly out of one's grasp, and/or hard to pin down.

Epicene is an adjective (sometimes substantive) that indicates a lack of gender distinction. The Order of the Epicene website includes a definition of epicene that they credit to the Oxford English Dictionary; ‘that which exhibits characteristics of both (binary) genders, yet is neither’. In linguistics, the adjective “epicene” is used to describe a word that has only one form for both male and female referents. Epicene may also be a non-binary gender identity.

Exgender or Egender is a genderless feeling that is stronger than agender. It is a refusal of the concept of gender, and of any gendered identity.

Existgender is a gender that simply exists.

Gender- or Gender(minus) is a gender which can only be closely described by a certain gender descriptor but doesn't quite fit every aspect of that label. Example: Xe identifies as maverique more than any other gender, but xe does not feel entirely independent of masculinity/femininity, and therefore isn't quite maverique. Xe is maverique-.

Gendereaux is a feeling of being detached from the concept of gender, but simultaneously identifying with or encompassing many nonbinary experiences or identities.

Genderlike is a gender identity that feels similar to, but not precisely, another gender. Can be combined with relevant genders.

Gendernull/Nullgender is being without gender, but it is not agender or neutrois, a term for those to give a “tangibility” to the intangible thing that is their gender. Described by a nullgender individual as thus:"Undefinable, intangible, the uncreation of gender. It's taking everything everyone throws at you, saying male, female, pick one, pick this, pick that, and taking it in, only to expel it, poisonous crystals erupting from your skin, armor against those who don't listen. A 'I don't want a label because labels don't fit but they help shut people up sometimes, so here have a label' gender label. A fall-back plan, a red herring to give people who can't conceptualize the absence, void, nullification of gender. It is, and is not. All and none. Nonexistant but present."

Genderunique is a gender that cannot be described by existing terms, it is very unique and personal. It is more up to interpretation by the individual that identifies with it than anyone else.

Gendervacuous or Vacugender is from the word “vacuum,” to describe the feeling of existing in a space without gender. Similar to egender and quoigender, but not quite the same. The feeling that gender as a concept does not apply to you, or does not fully apply to you. Someone who is vacugender can present in any way that person chooses, and may be okay with being viewed as any gender.

Genderweird is a term used to describe those whose gender cannot be described by any existing label, or cannot be pinned down as such.

Homproche ("om–PROESH"): Near or Approaching Male,” From French homme ‘man’ and proche ‘near.’ A gender expression that is Masculine, despite a gender identity that is not. An identity where one’s gender expression is an integral part of one’s queer experience.Can also be used, in some cases, as a synonym for Proxvir: A gender that is close to or resembles Male but is separate from it. This gender is not inherently Male-Aligned / Solarian, an Homproche can have any alignment.

Ilyagender: Having a tangible presence of gender, one which is not man, woman, neutral, or agender in any way, nor between or a combination or derivation. related: aliagender, aporagender, maverique.

Ningender: Umbrella term for all genders neutral in nature. Not synonymous with nb, because, for example, juxera is nonbinary but it is feminine in nature, not neutral. May simply be used as "nin", ie. "my gender is nin".

Nonpuer/Nonvir: Someone who is not male at all in any way, shape, or form, but feels a strong connection to masculinity within their gender. Nonpuer is the young form and Nonvir is the older form, as, similarly to the term "enby", many find "boy" (puer means boy in Latin) infantilizing.

Novigender: A gender experience too hard to read/process/understand or too complex to pin down to one word.

Preterbinary: Beyond the the gender binary/spectrum of male and female.

Transneutral:A term used to describe transgender people who were assigned male or female at birth, but identify with neutral gendered feelings to a greater extent than with femininity or masculinity. They usually are nonbinary but could be trans men or trans women.

Vexegender/Vexgender: When one’s gender is in the non-binary/agender spectrum, but pinpointing it beyond that is impossible because the individual does not understand the concept of gender.Not to be confused with Gendervex.

Xenogender: A nonbinary gender identity that cannot be contained by human understandings of gender; more concerned with crafting other methods of gender categorization and hierarchy such as those relating to animals, plants, or other creatures/things. It’s mainly an umbrella term for genders with themes such as nouns, archetypes, synesthetic experiences, neurodivergences.

All of the above definitions were taken from here and here unless otherwise noted. If none of these feel right I would recommend checking those links as well! They’ve got a ton of stuff.

[rotten-zucchinis]

“Identity” mini-series Part 1: the all-encompassing unique self (which is situated & relational)

When it comes to “identity”, there’s an inherent tension between uniqueness and universality; between the individual and the collectively shared-- a dialectical tension between individuality and relationality.

This is Part 1 of a mini-series on “identity”. This part focuses on identity in the “all-encompassing” sense which is an expression of uniqueness, albeit situated and defined relationally.

Part 2 [here] focuses on “identity as a dislocated aspect of self that is socially relevant and shared among a group.

Overview and summary [here].

“Identity” is the all-encompassing sense of self that can’t be described succinctly or with a single label or string of labels. My identity in this sense is every aspect of who I am and what it means to be me. This sense of self isn’t necessarily permanent-- it’s likely going to change over time-- but it’s generally stable in that it probably won’t radically shift moment to moment, and there’s some continuity about the way someone experiences it. [More in my supplement on the social construction of stability.] (And when there isn’t stability / continuity, that’s when people find themselves without a clear sense of self-- or in the case of multiplicity/systemhood, “selves” or distinct aspects/facets of self--, perhaps trying to puzzle out who they are or struggling with an “identity crisis”.)

In this sense, a person’s identity is unique to them, because they, alone, are themselves with their sum total of experiences and characteristics. It’s a situated identity-- the self is always already a self in context. How people interface with larger social systems and the resistance and marginalisation they face as they move through the world is also part of that sense of self. Those experiences might be diverse but together they form a totality. And that totality for one person will never be identical to that totality for someone else. In that all encompassing sense, “identity” is literally an expression of that person’s uniqueness.

Now, there are always going to be many more aspects of a person and their experience than are part of their subjective sense of self or subjectively experienced “identity”. Some things are absent from someone’s identity because they are just not socially relevant. [More in my supplement on socially irrelevant parts of self.] Meanwhile, some things are absent explicitly from someone’s identity because they are ever-present and taken-for-granted-- because they are an implicit part of identity. [More in my supplement on implicit aspects of identity and making them explicit to create a more accessible society.]

There are so many aspects about me. This includes but is not limited to being an aroace non-binary-freak spoonie with an affinity for cats, tap-dancing and string crafts. And while there might be any number of aroace non-binary-freak spoonies with affinities for cats, tap-dancing and string crafts, none of them are me, and if you put us all together, we’d be very different, have very different identities.

Some of these aspects might be describable with identity labels or descriptors of various degrees of importance to how I think about myself (e.g., white, liminally Jewish, feminist, atheist, vegan, anarchist-adjacent, small-footed, etc.). Generally, those represent aspects of me that I might share with others or with particular groups, or that might be understood in relation to a social structure with particular categories of experience (even if none of those categories quite “work” for me). Some might be more or less socially relevant, but if there’s a way to describe it succinctly, there’s got to be an element of that aspect that’s shared with others more broadly[1]. On the other hand, there are other aspects of me which will not be describable with identity labels or succinct descriptors. (i.e. aspects of me that aren’t necessarily shared with others or groups and which might be considered idiosyncrasies). My identity is all of these things together.

Taken as a whole, my embodied experience as I move through the world informs how people respond to me, and, for instance, the manifestations of casual homophobia and misogyny I encounter as a matter of course and the different ways people read my gender. But there isn’t a word or string of words that can express this. Similarly, how people prejudge my cognitive capacity and intellectual credibility depends on how fluent my speech is at that given moment (or series of moments), whether I’m bordering on non-verbal and/or whether words come out right. There isn’t an identity label or series of words or description that can fully express these experiences. There certainly isn’t a label that expresses who I am as a whole.

At the same time, even these aspects of me that I just described and the social structures I relate to are not unique to me. They are shared with many others. There are aspects of myself that are “unlike” most people around me, that are not “what they are supposed to be”... in ways that are *similar* to some other people who are also “unlike” most people around them and that are not “what they are supposed to be”. (And some aspects of myself that are “unlike” most people but not similar to other people-- wherein I might feel alone in those experiences.) And there are aspects of me that are “like” most people around me or are “what they are supposed to be”.

All of these things form the sum-total of my identity, which informs how I related to the world and other people-- and how they relate to me-- how I understand society and its problems, and the politics I have and live[2]. My identity represents my unique and uniquely situated self amid a seemingly-never-ending collection of similarities and differences with other individuals and groups.

When I say that being asexual is part of my identity, or that my identity is asexual (among other things)... I mean that being asexual is part of who I am as a person, how I experience the world and informs the kinds of communities and social changes I want to work toward. I mean that it matters to me and that it’s inextricably intertwined and merged with other aspects of who I am. I mean that it matters to how I related to people, both casually and more intimately. It means that I don’t experience “my asexuality” as separate from the “me” being asexual. It means that I share *something* in common with other ace folks, even if it’s not the same *something* for all aces and even if we all relate differently to that *something*.

Footnotes:

[1]  For me to have “small feet”, not only must other people have feet, but my society must notice foot size (e.g., to produce and sell shoes) while classifying and having expectations about what foot sizes are “normal”, “small” and “large” (perhaps, with expectations tailored to things such as gender and/or general body size).

To be sure, part of my having “small feet” is about the type of shoe I am inclined to wear and the size of people generally who wear the kinds of shoes I wear. I am generally uninterested in wearing “women’s” shoes, but “men’s” shoes don’t come in sizes small enough to fit me. So I wear “children’s shoes” with my “small feet”. In turn, these seem especially small next to the similar-looking “men’s” shoes worn by people who might wear plaid shirts in sizes similar to mine. If I regularly wore “women’s shoes”, my feet would still be seen as being on the smaller end of the foot-size spectrum, but wouldn’t be regularly regarded as “tiny”.

[2] I have the politics that I have because of the sum-total of who I am in social context and how I experience the world as I move through it. That’s actually the meaning of “identity” that originally grounded the term “identity politics” (which had little to do with disembodied identity labels). 

This was before it was recuperated by the forces of neoliberalism into something that bears little resemblance to what it was and how the concept was originally deployed. “Identity politics” actually shares a pragmatic origin with “intersectionality”-- in Black lesbian feminism. [text of the Combahee River Collective Statement, 1977]. But that’s another story.

[oovitus]

Calories in vs. out? Or hormones? The debate is finally over. Here’s who won.

When it comes to body change, there’s no topic more polarizing than “calories in vs. calories out.” Some argue it’s the be-all and end-all of weight loss. Others say it’s oversimplified and misguided. In this article, we explore every angle of the debate from “eat less, move more,” to hormonal issues, to diets that offer a “metabolic advantage.” In doing so, we answer—once and for all—how important calories in vs. calories out really is. And discuss what it means for you and your clients.  

+++

“You’re either with me, or you’re against me.”

Everyone’s heard this one. But did you know the health and fitness industry has its own version of the saying? It goes: “You’re either with me, or you’re stupid.”

I kid, of course!

But this kind of binary mindset does fuel plenty of heated debates. Especially when it comes to one topic in particular: “calories in vs. calories out,” or CICO.

CICO is an easy way of saying:

When you take in more energy than you burn, you gain weight.

When you take in less energy than you burn, you lose weight.

This is a fundamental concept in body weight regulation, and about as close to scientific fact as we can get.

Then why is CICO the source of so much disagreement?

It’s all about the extremes.

At one end of the debate there’s a group who believes CICO is straightforward. If you aren’t losing weight, the reason is simple: You’re either eating too many calories, or not moving enough, or both. Just eat less and move more.

At the other end is a group who believes CICO is broken (or even a complete myth). These critics say it doesn’t account for hormone imbalances, insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and other health problems that affect metabolism. They often claim certain diets and foods provide a “metabolic advantage,” helping you lose weight without worrying about CICO.

Neither viewpoint is completely wrong.

But neither is completely right, either.

Whether you’re a health and fitness coach tasked with helping clients manage their weight—or you’re trying to learn how to do that for yourself—adopting an extreme position on this topic is problematic; it prevents you from seeing the bigger picture.

This article will add some nuance to the debate.

I’ll start by clearing up some misconceptions about CICO. And then explore several real-world examples showing how far-right or far-left views can hold folks back.

Rethinking common misconceptions.

Much of the CICO debate—as with many other debates—stems from misconceptions, oversimplifications, and a failure (by both sides) to find a shared understanding of concepts. So let’s start by getting everyone on the same page for a change.

CICO goes beyond food and exercise.

There’s an important distinction to be made between CICO and “eat less, move more.” But people, especially some CICO advocates, tend to conflate the two.

“Eat less, move more” only takes into account the calories you eat and the calories you burn through exercise and other daily movement. But CICO is really an informal way of expressing the Energy Balance Equation, which is far more involved.

The Energy Balance Equation—and therefore CICO—includes all the complex inner workings of the body, as well as the external factors that ultimately impact “calories in” and “calories out.”

Imperative to this, and often overlooked, is your brain. It’s constantly monitoring and controlling CICO. Think of it as mission control, sending and receiving messages that involve your gut, hormones, organs, muscles, bones, fat cells, external stimuli (and more), to help balance “energy in” and “energy out.”

It’s one hell of a complicated—and beautiful—system.

Yet the Energy Balance Equation itself looks really simple. Here it is:

[Energy in] – [Energy out] = Changes in body stores*

*Body stores refers to all the tissues available for breakdown, such as fat, muscle, organ, and bone. I purposely haven’t used “change in body weight” here because I want to exclude water weight, which can change body weight independent of energy balance. In other words, water is a confusing, confounding variable that tricks people into thinking energy balance is broken when it’s not.

With this equation, “energy in” and “energy out” aren’t just calories from food and exercise. As you can see in the illustration below, all kinds of factors influence these two variables.

When you view CICO through through this lens—by zooming out for a wider perspective—you can see boiling it down to “eat less, move more” is a significant oversimplification.

Calorie calculators and CICO aren’t the same.

Many people use calorie calculators to estimate their energy needs, and to  approximate how many calories they’ve eaten. But sometimes these tools don’t seem to work. As a result, these individuals start to question whether CICO is broken. (Or whether they’re broken).

The key words here are “estimate” and “approximate.”

That’s because calorie calculators aren’t necessarily accurate.

For starters, they provide an output based on averages, and can be off by as much as 20-30 percent in normal, young, healthy people. They may vary even more in older, clinical, or obese populations.

And that’s just on the “energy out” side.

The number of calories you eat—or your “energy in”—is also just an estimate.

For example, the FDA allows inaccuracies of up to 20% on label calorie counts, and research shows restaurant nutrition information can be off by 100-300 calories per food item.

What’s more, even if you were able to accurately weigh and measure every morsel you eat, you still wouldn’t have an exact “calories in” number. That’s because there are other confounding factors, such as:

We don’t absorb all of the calories we consume. And absorption rates vary across food types. (Example: We absorb more calories than estimated from fiber-rich foods, and less calories than estimated from nuts and seeds.)

We all absorb calories uniquely based on our individual gut bacteria.

Cooking, blending, or chopping food generally makes more calories available for absorption than may appear on a nutrition label.

Of course, this doesn’t mean CICO doesn’t work. It only means the tools we have to estimate “calories in” and “calories out” are limited.

To be crystal clear: Calorie calculators can still be very helpful for some people. But it’s important to be aware of their limitations. If you’re going to use one, do so as a rough starting point, not a definitive “answer.”

CICO doesn’t require calorie counting.

At Precision Nutrition, sometimes we use calorie counting to help clients improve their food intake. Other times we use hand portions. And other times we use more intuitive approaches.

For example, let’s say a client wants to lose weight, but they’re not seeing the results they want. If they’re counting calories or using hand portions, we might use those numbers as a reference to further reduce the amount of food they’re eating. But we also might encourage them to use other techniques instead. Like eating slowly, or until they’re 80 percent full.

In every case—whether we’re talking numbers or not — we’re manipulating “energy in.” Sometimes directly; sometimes indirectly. So make no mistake: Even when we’re not “counting calories,” CICO still applies.

CICO might sound simple, but it’s not.

There’s no getting around it: If you (or a client) aren’t losing weight, you either need to decrease “energy in” or increase “energy out.” But as you’ve already seen, that may involve far more than just pushing away your plate or spending more time at the gym.

For instance, it may require you to:

Get more high-quality sleep to better regulate hunger hormones, improve recovery, and increase metabolic output

Try stress resilience techniques like meditation, deep breathing, and spending time in nature

Increase your daily non-exercise movement by parking the car a few blocks away from your destination, taking the stairs, and/or standing while you work

Trade some high-intensity exercise for lower-intensity activities, in order to aid recovery and reduce systemic stress

Improve the quality of what you’re eating, as opposed to reducing the quantity. This can allow you to eat more food with fewer total calories

Tinker with the macronutrient makeup of what you eat. For example: eating more protein and fiber, or increasing carbs and lowering fats, or vice versa

Experiment with the frequency and timing of your meals and snacks, based on personal preferences and appetite cues

Consider temporarily tracking your food intake—via hand portions or weighing/measuring—to ensure you’re eating what you think you’re eating (as closely as reasonably possible)

Evaluate and correct nutritional deficiencies, for more energy during workouts (and in everyday life)

Consult with your physician or specialists if consistent lifestyle changes aren’t moving the needle

Sometimes the solutions are obvious; sometimes they aren’t. But with CICO, the answers are there, if you keep your mind open and examine every factor.

Imagine yourself a “calorie conductor” who oversees and fine-tunes many actions to create metabolic harmony. You’re looking for anything that could be out of sync.

This takes lots of practice.

So, to help, here are 5 common energy balance dilemmas. In each case, it might be tempting to assume CICO doesn’t apply. But look a little a deeper, and you’ll see the principles of CICO are always present.

5 common energy balance dilemmas.

Dilemma #1: “I’ve been eating the same way forever, but suddenly I started gaining weight.”

Can you guess what happened?

More than likely, “energy in” or “energy out” did change, but in a way that felt out of control or unnoticeable.

The culprit could be:

Slight increases in food intake, due to changes in mood, hunger, or stress

An increase in the amount of energy absorbed—caused by new medication, an unknown medical condition, or a history of chronic dieting

Physiological changes that resulted in fewer calories burned during exercise and at rest

The onset of chronic pain, provoking a dramatic decrease in non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT)

Significant changes to sleep quality and/or quantity, impacting metabolic output and/or food consumed

In all of these cases, CICO is still valid. Energy balance just shifted in subtle ways, due to lifestyle and health status changes, making it hard to recognize.

Dilemma #2: “My hormones are wreaking havoc on my metabolism, and I can’t stop gaining weight. Help!”

Hormones seem like a logical scapegoat for weight changes.

And while they’re probably not to blame as often as people think, hormones are intricately entwined with energy balance.

But even so, they don’t operate independently of energy balance.

In other words, people don’t gain weight because “hormones.”

They gain weight because their hormones are impacting their energy balance.

This often happens during menopause or when thyroid hormone levels decline.

Take, for example, triiodothyronine (T3) and thyroxine (T4), two thyroid hormones that are incredibly important for metabolic function. If levels of these hormones diminish, weight gain may occur. But this doesn’t negate CICO: Your hormones are simply influencing “energy out.”

This may seem a bit like splitting hairs, but it’s an important connection to make, whether we’re talking about menopause or thyroid problems or insulin resistance or other hormonal issues.

By understanding CICO is the true determinant of weight loss, you’ll have many more tools for achieving the outcome you want.

Suppose you’re working from the false premise hormones are the only thing that matters. This can lead to increasingly unhelpful decisions, like spending a large sum of money on unnecessary supplements, or adhering to an overly restrictive diet that backfires in the long run.

Instead, you know results are dependent on the fact that “energy in” or “energy out” has changed. Now, this change can be due to hormones, and if so, you’ll have to make adjustments to your eating, exercise, and/or lifestyle habits to account for it. (This could include taking medication prescribed by your doctor, if appropriate.)

Research suggests people with mild (10-15% of the population) to moderate hypothyroidism (2-3%) may experience a metabolic slow down of 140 to 360 calories a day.

That can be enough to lead to weight gain, or make it harder to lose weight. (One caveat: Mild hypothyroidism can be so mild many people don’t experience a significant shift in metabolic activity, making it a non-issue.)

What’s more, women suffering from polycystic ovary syndrome, or PCOS (about 5-10%), and those going through menopause, may also experience hormonal changes that disrupt energy balance.

So, it’s important to understand your (or your client’s) health status, as that will provide valuable information about the unique challenges involved and how you should proceed.

Dilemma #3: “I’m only eating 1,000 calories a day and I’m still not losing weight!”

So what gives?

The conclusion most people jump to: Their metabolism is broken. They’re broken. And CICO is broken.

But here’s the deal: Metabolic damage isn’t really a thing. Even though it may seem that way.

Now, their energy balance challenge could be related to a hormonal issue, as discussed above. However, when someone’s eating 1,000 calories a day but not losing weight, it’s usually due to one of the two reasons that follow.

(No matter how simple they sound, this is what we’ve seen over and over again in our coaching program, with over 100,000 clients.)

Reason #1: People often underestimate their calorie intake.

It’s easy to miscalculate how much you’re eating, as it’s usually unintentional. The most typical ways people do it:

They underestimate portions. (For example, without precisely measuring “one tablespoon of peanut butter,” it might actually be two, which adds 90 calories each time you do it)

They don’t track bites, licks, and tastes of calorie-dense foods. (For example, your kid’s leftover mac and cheese could easily add 100 calories)

They don’t record everything in the moment and forget to log it later on

They “forget” to count foods they’d wished they hadn’t eaten

Don’t believe this can be a big issue?

A landmark study, and repeated follow up studies, found people often underestimate how much they eat over the course of a day, sometimes by more than 1,000 calories.

I’m not bringing this research up to suggest it’s impossible to be realistic about portion sizes. But if you (or your clients) aren’t seeing results on a low-calorie diet, it’s worth considering that underestimation may be the problem.

Reason #2: People overeat on the weekends.

Work weeks can be stressful and when Friday night rolls around, people put their guard down and let loose.

(You probably can’t relate, but just try, okay?)

Here’s how it goes: Let’s say a person is eating 1,500 calories a day on weekdays, which would give them an approximate 500-calorie deficit.

But on the weekends, they deviate from their plan just a little.

Drinks with friends and a few slices of late night pizza on Friday

An extra big lunch after their workout on Saturday

Brunch on Sunday (“Hey, it’s breakfast and lunch, so I can eat double!)

The final tally: An extra 4,000 calories consumed between Friday night and Sunday afternoon. They’ve effectively canceled out their deficit, bumping their average daily calories to 2,071.

The upshot: If you (or your client) have slashed your calories dramatically, but you aren’t seeing the expected results, look for the small slips. It’s like being a metabolic detective who’s following—perhaps literally—the bread crumbs.

By the way, if downtime is problem for you (or a client), we have just the remedy: 5 surprising strategies to ditch weekend overeating.

Dilemma #4: “I’m eating as much as I want and still losing weight, so this diet is better than all the others!”

This might be the top reason some people reject CICO.

Say someone switches from a diet of mostly processed foods to one made up of mostly whole, plant-based foods. They might find they can eat as much food as they want, yet the pounds still melt away.

People often believe this is due to the “power of plants.”

Yes, plants are great, but this doesn’t disprove energy balance.

Because plant foods have a very-low energy density, you can eat a lot of them and still be in a calorie deficit. Especially if your previous intake was filled with lots of processed, hyperpalatable “indulgent foods.”

It feels like you’re eating much more food than ever before—and, in fact, you really might be.

On top of that, you might also feel more satiated because of the volume, fiber, and water content of the plants.

All of which is great. Truly. But it doesn’t negate CICO.

Or take the ketogenic diet, for example.

Here, someone might have a similar experience of “eating as much as they want” and still losing weight, but instead of plant foods, they’re eating meat, cheese, and eggs. Those aren’t low-calorie foods, and they don’t have much fiber, either.

As a result, plenty of low-carb advocates claim keto offers a “metabolic advantage” over other diets.

Here’s what’s most likely happening:

Greater intake of protein increases satiety and reduces appetite

Limited food choices have cut out hundreds of highly-processed calories they might have eaten otherwise (Pasta! Chips! Cookies!)

Reduced food options can also lead to “sensory-specific satiety.” Meaning, when you eat the same foods all the time, they may become less appealing, so you’re not driven to eat as much

Liquid calories—soda, juice, even milk—are generally off limits, so a greater proportion of calories are consumed from solid foods, which are more filling

Higher blood levels of ketones—which rise when carbs are restricted—seem to suppress appetite

For these reasons, people tend to eat fewer calories and feel less hungry.

Although it might seem magical, the keto diet results in weight loss by regulating “energy in” through a variety of ways.

You might ask: If plant-based and keto diets work so well, why should anyone care if it’s because of CICO, or for some other reason?

Because depending on the person—food preferences, lifestyle, activity level, and so on—many diets, including plant-based and keto, aren’t sustainable long-term. This is particularly true of the more restrictive approaches.

And if you (or your client) believe there’s only one “best diet,” you may become frustrated if you aren’t able to stick to it. You may view yourself as a failure and decide you lack the discipline to lose weight. You may even think you should stop trying.

None of which are true.

Your results aren’t diet dependent. They’re behavior dependent.

Maintaining a healthy body (including a healthy body weight) is about developing consistent, sustainable daily habits that help you positively impact “energy in” and “energy out.”

This might be accomplished while enjoying the foods you love, by:

Eating until you’re 80% full

Eating slowly and mindfully

Eating more minimally processed foods

Getting more high quality sleep

Taking steps to reduce stress and build resilience

It’s about viewing CICO from 30,000 feet and figuring out what approach feels sane—and achievable—for you.

Sure, that might include a plant-based or a keto diet, but it absolutely might not, too. And you know what?

You can get great results either way.  

Dilemma #5: “I want to gain weight, but no matter how much I eat, I can’t seem to.”

The CICO conversation doesn’t always revolve around weight loss.

Some people struggle to gain weight.

Especially younger athletes and people who are very, very active at work. (Think: jobs that involve manual labor.)

It also happens with those who are trying to regain lost weight after an illness.

When someone intentionally eats more food but can’t pack on the pounds, it may seem like CICO is invalidated. (Surprise.)

They often feel like they’re stuffing themselves—“I’m eating everything in sight!”—and it’s just not working. But here’s what our coaches have found:

People tend to remember extremes.

Someone might have had six meals in one day, eating as much as they felt like they could stand.

But the following day, they only ate two meals because they were still so full. Maybe they were really busy, too, so they didn’t even think much about it.

The first day—the one where they stuffed themselves—would likely stand out a lot more than the day they ate in accordance with their hunger levels. That’s just human nature.

It’s easy to see how CICO is involved here. It’s lack of consistency on the “energy in” part of the equation.

One solution: Instead of stuffing yourself with 3,000 calories one day, and then eating 1,500 the next, aim for a calorie intake just above the middle you can stick with, and increase it in small amounts over time, if needed.

People often increase activity when they increase calories.

When some people suddenly have more available energy—from eating more food—they’re more likely to do things that increase their energy out. Like taking the stairs, pacing while on the phone, and fidgeting in their seats.

They might even push harder during a workout than they would normally.

This can be both subconscious and subtle.

And though it might sound weird, our coaches have identified this as a legitimate problem for “hardgainers.”

Your charge: Take notice of all your activity.

If you can’t curtail some of it, you may have to compensate by eating even more food. Nutrient- and calorie-dense foods like nut butters, whole grains, and oils can help, especially if you’re challenged by your lack of appetite.

3 strategies to game the system.

Once you accept that CICO is both complex and inescapable, you may find yourself up against one very common challenge.

Namely: “I can’t eat any less than I am now!”

This is one of the top reasons people abandon their weight loss efforts or go searching in vain for a miracle diet.

But here are three simple strategies you (or your clients) can use to create a caloric deficit, even if it seems impossible. It’s all about figuring out which one works best for you.

Maximize protein and fiber.

Consuming higher amounts of protein increases satiety, helping you feel more satisfied between meals. And consuming higher amounts of fiber increases satiation, helping you feel more satisfied during meals.

These are both proven in research and practice to help you feel more satisfied overall while eating fewer calories, leading to easier fat loss.

This advice can sound trite, I know. In fact, someday when there are nutrition coach robots, “eat more protein and fiber” will probably be the first thing they’re programmed to say.

But the truth is, most people trying to lose weight still aren’t focused on getting plenty of these two nutrients.

And you know what? It’s not their fault.

When it comes to diets, almost everyone has been told to subtract. Take away the “bad” stuff, and only eat the “good” stuff.

But there’s another approach: Just start by adding.

If you make a concerted effort to increase protein (especially lean protein) and fiber intake (especially from vegetables), you’ll feel more satisfied.

You’ll also be less tempted by all the foods you think you should be avoiding. This helps to automatically “crowd out” ultra-processed foods.

Which leads to another big benefit: By eating more whole foods and fewer of the processed kind, you’re actually retraining your brain to desire those indulgent, ultra-processed foods less.

That’s when a cool thing happens: You start eating fewer calories without actively trying to—rather than purposely restricting because you have to.

That makes weight loss easier.

Starting is simple: For protein, add one palm of relatively lean protein—chicken, fish, tempeh—to one meal. This is beyond what you would have had otherwise. Or have a Super Shake as a meal or snack.

For fiber, add one serving of high-fiber food—in particular vegetables, fruit, lentils and beans—to your regular intake. This might mean having an apple for a snack, including a fistful of roasted carrots at dinner, or tossing in a handful of spinach in your Super Shake.

Try this for two weeks, and then add another palm of lean protein, and one more serving of high-fiber foods.

Besides all the upside we’ve discussed so far, there’s also this:

Coming to the table with a mindset of abundance—rather than scarcity—can help you avoid those anxious, frustrated feelings that often come with being deprived of the foods you love.

So instead of saying, “Ugh, I really don’t think I can give up my nightly wine and chocolate habit,” you might say, “Hey, look at all this delicious, healthy food I can feed my body!”

(And by the way, you don’t actually have to give up your wine and chocolate habit, at least not to initiate progress.)

Shift your perspective.

Imagine you’re on vacation. You slept in and missed breakfast.

Of course, you don’t really mind because you’re relaxed and having a great time. And there’s no reason to panic: Lunch will happen.

But since you’ve removed a meal, you end up eating a few hundred calories less than normal for the day, effectively creating a deficit.

Given you’re in an environment where you feel calm and happy, you hardly even notice.

Now suppose you wake up on a regular day, and you’re actively trying to lose weight. (To get ready for vacation!)

You might think: “I only get to have my 400-calorie breakfast, and it’s not enough food. This is the worst. I’m going to be so hungry all day!”

So you head to work feeling stressed, counting down the minutes to your next snack or meal. Maybe you even start to feel deprived and miserable.

Here’s the thing: You were in a calorie deficit both days, but your subjective experience of each was completely different.

What if you could adjust your thinking to be more like the first scenario rather then the second?

Of course, I’m not suggesting you skip breakfast everyday (unless that’s just your preference).

But if you can manage to see eating less as something you happen to be doing— rather than something you must do—it may end up feeling a lot less terrible.

Add activity rather than subtracting calories.

Are you a person who doesn’t want to eat less, but would happily move more? If so, you might be able to take advantage of something I’ve called G-Flux.

G-Flux, also known as “energy flux,” is the total amount of energy that flows in and out of a system.

As an example, say you want to create a 500-calorie deficit. That could like this:

Energy in: 2,000 calories

Energy out: 2,500 calories

Deficit: 500 calories

But it could also look like this:

Energy in: 3,000 calories

Energy out: 3,500 calories

Deficit: 500 calories

In both scenarios, you’ve achieved a 500-calorie deficit, but the second allows you to eat a lot more food.

That’s one benefit of a greater G-Flux.

But there’s also another: Research suggests if you’re eating food from high-quality sources and doing a variety of workouts—strength training, conditioning, and recovery work—eating more calories can help you carry more lean mass and less fat.

That’s because the increased exercise doesn’t just serve to boost your “energy out.” It also changes nutrient partitioning, sending more calories toward muscle growth and fewer to your fat cells.

Plus, since you’re eating more food, you have more opportunity to get the quantities of vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients you need in order to feel your best.

Win. Win. Win.

To be clear, this is a somewhat advanced method. And because metabolism and energy balance are dynamic in nature, the effectiveness of this method may vary from person to person.

Plus, not everyone has the ability or the desire to spend more time exercising. And that’s okay.

But by being flexible with your thinking—and willing to experiment with different ways of influencing CICO—you can find your own personal strategy for tipping energy balance in your (or your clients’) favor.

If you’re a coach, or you want to be…

Learning how to coach clients, patients, friends, or family members through healthy eating and lifestyle changes—in a way that optimizes energy balance for each unique body, personality, and lifestyle—is both an art and a science.

If you’d like to learn more about both, consider the Precision Nutrition Level 1 Certification. The next group kicks off shortly.

What’s it all about?

The Precision Nutrition Level 1 Certification is the world’s most respected nutrition education program. It gives you the knowledge, systems, and tools you need to really understand how food influences a person’s health and fitness. Plus the ability to turn that knowledge into a thriving coaching practice.

Developed over 15 years, and proven with over 100,000 clients and patients, the Level 1 curriculum stands alone as the authority on the science of nutrition and the art of coaching.

Whether you’re already mid-career, or just starting out, the Level 1 Certification is your springboard to a deeper understanding of nutrition, the authority to coach it, and the ability to turn what you know into results.

[Of course, if you’re already a student or graduate of the Level 1 Certification, check out our Level 2 Certification Master Class. It’s an exclusive, year-long mentorship designed for elite professionals looking to master the art of coaching and be part of the top 1% of health and fitness coaches in the world.]

Interested? Add your name to the presale list. You’ll save up to 33% and secure your spot 24 hours before everyone else.

We’ll be opening up spots in our next Precision Nutrition Level 1 Certification on Wednesday, April 3rd, 2019.

If you want to find out more, we’ve set up the following presale list, which gives you two advantages.

Pay less than everyone else. We like to reward people who are eager to boost their credentials and are ready to commit to getting the education they need. So we’re offering a discount of up to 33% off the general price when you sign up for the presale list.

Sign up 24 hours before the general public and increase your chances of getting a spot. We only open the certification program twice per year. Due to high demand, spots in the program are limited and have historically sold out in a matter of hours. But when you sign up for the presale list, we’ll give you the opportunity to register a full 24 hours before anyone else.

If you’re ready for a deeper understanding of nutrition, the authority to coach it, and the ability to turn what you know into results… this is your chance to see what the world’s top professional nutrition coaching system can do for you.

The post Calories in vs. out? Or hormones? The debate is finally over. Here’s who won. appeared first on Precision Nutrition.

Calories in vs. out? Or hormones? The debate is finally over. Here’s who won. published first on

[emmagreen1220-blog]

New Post has been published on Biology Dictionary

New Post has been published on https://biologydictionary.net/cell-cycle/

Cell Cycle

Cell Cycle Definition

The cell cycle is a cycle of stages that cells pass through to allow them to divide and produce new cells. It is sometimes referred to as the “cell division cycle” for that reason.

New cells are born through the division of their “parent” cell, producing two “daughter” cells from one single “parent” cell.

Daughter cells start life small, containing only half of the parent cell’s cytoplasm and only one copy of the DNA that is the cell’s “blueprint” or “source code” for survival. In order to divide and produce “daughter cells” of their own, the newborn cells must grow and produce more copies of vital cellular machinery – including their DNA.

The two main parts of the cell cycle are mitosis and interphase.

Mitosis is the phase of cell division, during which a “parent cell” divides to create two “daughter cells.”

The longest part of the cell cycle is called “interphase” – the phase of growth and DNA replication between mitotic cell divisions.

Both mitosis and interphase are divided into smaller sub-phases which need to be executed in order for cell division, growth, and development to proceed smoothly. Here we will focus on interphase, as the phases of mitosis have been covered in our “Mitosis” article.

Interphase consists of at least three distinct stages during which the cell grows, produces new organelles, replicates its DNA, and finally divides.

Only after the cell has grown by absorbing nutrients, and copied its DNA and other essential cellular machinery, can this “daughter cell” divide, becoming “parent” to two “daughter cells” of its own.

The graphic below shows a visual representation of the cell cycle. The small section labeled “M” represents mitosis, while interphase is shown subdivided into its major components: the G1, S, and G2 phases.

This cell cycle is used by all eukaryotic cells to produce new cells. Prokaryotic cells such as bacteria use a process called “binary fission.”

For some unicellular eukaryotes, the cell cycle is the same as the reproductive cycle. Their “daughter cells” are independent organisms that will go on to reproduce themselves through mitosis.

In other organisms, the cell cycle is used for growth and development of a single organism, while other methods are used to reproduce the organism.

Animals and some plants, for example, create new offspring through a process of sexual reproduction which involves the creation and combination of special sex cells.

But animals and plants still use the cell cycle to produce new cells within their tissues. This allows these multicellular organisms grow and heal throughout their lifespans.

Function of Cell Cycle

Because cells reproduce by dividing, new “daughter” cells are smaller than their parent cells, and may inherit the bare minimum of cellular machinery they need to survive.

Before these daughter cells can divide to produce still more cells, they need to grow and reproduce their cellular machinery.

The importance of the cell cycle can be understood by doing simple math about cell division. If cells did not grow in between divisions, each generation of “daughter” cells would be only half the size of the parent generation. This would become unsustainable pretty quickly!

In order to accomplish this growth and prepare for cell division, cells divide their metabolic activities into distinct phases of Gap 1, Synthesis, Gap 2 between cell divisions.

The complete cell division cycle will be discussed below.

Phases of Cell Cycle

Mitosis

Let’s start this cell cycle with “birth.”

During mitosis, the “parent” cell goes through a complex series of steps to ensure that each “daughter” cell will get the materials it needs to survive, including a copy of each chromosome. Once the materials are properly sorted, the “parent” cell divides down the middle, pinching its membrane in two.

You can read more about the detailed steps of mitosis and how a parent cell makes sure its daughter cells will inherit what they need to survive in our article on Mitosis (https://biologydictionary.net/mitosis/).

Each of the new “daughters” are now independently living cells. But they’re small, and have only one copy of their genetic material.

This means they can’t divide to produce their own “daughters” right away. First, they must pass through “interphase” – the phase between divisions, which consists of three distinct phases.

G1 Phase

In G1 phase, the newly formed daughter cell grows. The “G” is most often said to stand for “gap,” since these phases appear to an outside observer with a light microscope to be relatively inactive “gaps” in the cell’s activity.

However given what we know today, it might be more accurate to say the “G” stands for “growth” – for the “G” phases are flurries of protein and organelle production as well as literal increase in the size of the cell.

During the first “growth” or “gap” phase, the cell produces many essential materials such as proteins and ribosomes. Cells that rely on specialized organelles such as chloroplasts and mitochondria make a lot more of those organelles during G1 as well. The cell’s size may increase as it assimilates more material from its environment into its machinery for life.

This allows the cell to increase its energy production and overall metabolism, preparing it for…

S Phase

During S phase, the cell replicates its DNA. The “S” stands for “synthesis” – referring to the synthesis of new chromosomes from raw materials.

This is a very energy-intensive operation, since many nucleotides need to by synthesized. Many eukaryotic cells have dozens of chromosomes – huge masses of DNA – that must be copied.

Production of other substances and organelles is slowed greatly during this time as the cell focuses on replicating its entire genome.

When the S phase is completed, the cell will have two complete sets of its genetic material. This is crucial for cell division, as it ensures that both daughter cells can receive a copy of the “blueprint” they need to survive and reproduce.

However, replicating its DNA can leave the cell a little bit depleted. That’s why it has to go through…

G2 Phase

Just like the first “gap” phase of the cell cycle, the G2 phase is characterized by lots of protein production.

During G2, many cells also check to make sure that both copies of their DNA are correct and intact. If a cell’s DNA is found to be damaged, it may fail its “G2/M checkpoint” – so named because the this “checkpoint” happens at the end of the G2 phase, right between G2 and “M phase” or “Mitosis.”

This “G2/M checkpoint” is a very important safety measure for multicellular organisms like animals. Cancers, which can result in the death of the entire organism, can occur when cells with damaged DNA reproduce. By checking to see if a cells’ DNA has been damaged immediately before replication, animals and some other organisms reduce the risk of cancer.

Interestingly, some organisms can skip G2 altogether and go straight into mitosis after DNA is synthesized during S phase. Most organisms, however, find it safer to use G2 and its associated checkpoint!

If the G2/M checkpoint is passed, the cell cycle begins again. The cell divides through mitosis, and new daughter cells begin the cycle that will take them through G1, S, and G2 phases to produce new daughter cells of their own.

Unless of course they’re meant for…

An Alternative Path: G0 Phase

After being born through mitosis, some cells are not meant to divide themselves to produce daughter cells.

Neurons, for example – animal nerve cells – do not divide. Their “parent cells” are stem cells, and the “daughter” neuron cells are programmed not to go through the cell cycle themselves because uncontrolled neuron growth and cell division could be very dangerous for the organism.

So instead of entering G1 phase after being “born,” neurons enter a phase scientists call “G0 phase.” This is a metabolic state meant only to maintain the daughter cell, not prepare for cell division.

Neurons and other non-dividing cell types may spend their whole lives in G0 phase, performing their function for the overall organism without ever dividing or reproducing themselves.

Cell Cycle Regulation

It’s very important for the survival of cells and organisms that the cell cycle be regulated.

Organisms need to be able to stop cell division when the cell in question is damaged, or when there isn’t enough food to support new growth; they must also be able to start up cell division when growth or wound healing are needed.

To accomplish this, cells use a variety of chemical “signal cascades” where multiple links in a chain create complex effects based on simple signals.

In these regulatory cascades, a single protein may change the function of many other proteins, bringing about widespread changes to the functioning or even structure of the cell.

This allows these proteins – such as cyclins and cyclin-dependent kinases – to act as “stop points.” If the cyclins or cyclin-dependent kinases don’t give the go-ahead, the cell cannot progress to subsequent stages of the cell cycle.

Some examples of cell cycle regulation are given below.

Cell Cycle Examples

Here we’ll discuss common examples of how cells regulate their cell cycles, using a complex cascade of signal molecules, protein-activating enzymes, and signal-destroying molecules.

p53

p53 is a protein that is well-known to scientists for its role in stopping cells with severe DNA damage from reproducing.

When DNA is damaged, p53 works with cyclin-dependent protein kinases and other proteins to initiate repair and protection functions – and can also stop the cell from entering mitosis, ensuring that cells with DNA damage do not reproduce.

Cyclins

Cyclins are a group of proteins that are produced at different points in the cell cycle. There are cyclins unique to most phases of the cell cycle – G1 cyclins, G1 /S cyclins that regulate the transition from G1 into S, S cyclins, and M cyclins that regulate the progress through the stages of mitosis.

Most cyclins are found in the cell at very low concentrations during other phases of the cell cycle, but then spike suddenly when they’re needed to give the go-ahead to the next stage of the cell cycle. Certain types of DNA damage may prevent these cyclins from appearing to move the cell cycle forward, or may prevent them from activating their cyclin-dependent protein kinases.

A few others, such as G1 cyclins, remain high as a constant “go ahead” signal from G1 until mitosis.

Cyclin-Dependent Protein Kinases

The cell’s cyclins ultimately do their jobs by interacting with Cyclin-Dependent Protein Kinases – that is, kinases that activate certain enzymes and proteins when they bind to a cyclin. This allows cyclins to function as the “go” signal for many changes in cellular activity that happens throughout the cell cycle.

Protein kinases are a special set of enzymes that “activate” other enzymes and proteins by affixing phosphate groups to them. When an enzyme or other protein is “activated” by a kinase, its behavior changes until it returns to its inactivated form.

The system by which one protein kinase can change the activities of many other proteins allows simple signals, such as cyclins, to produce complex changes to cellular activity. Signal-dependent protein kinases are used to coordinate many complex cellular activities.

Maturation-Promoting Factor

One example of a protein kinase at work is the Maturation-Promoting Factor, or MPF. MPF is a protein kinase that is activated by an M cyclin, meaning that it is activated during mitosis.

When MPF is activated, it in turn activates several different proteins in the nuclear envelop of its host cell. The changes to these proteins result in the disintegration of the nuclear envelope.

This is something that would be very dangerous at other points in the cell cycle, but which is necessary during mitosis so that the chromosomes can be sorted to ensure that each daughter cell receives a copy of each chromosome.

If M cyclins do not appear, MPF does not activate, and mitosis cannot go forward. This is a good example of how cyclins and cyclin-dependent kinases work together to coordinate – or stop – the cell cycle.

Anaphase-Promoting Complex/Cyclosome

Ingeniously, the protein kinase MPF doesn’t just ensure that the nuclear envelope breaks down during mitosis – it also ensures that MPF levels will fall after the nuclear envelope is broken down. It does this by activating the Anaphase-Promoting Complex/Cyclosome, or “APC/C” for short.

As its name suggests, the APC/C promotes passage into Anaphase – and one of the ways it does that is by breaking down MPF, a messenger from a previous phase. So MPF actually activates the very proteins that destroy it.

The destruction of MPF by the APC/C ensures that the actions MPF promotes – such as the disintegration of the nuclear envelope – do not happen again until the daughter cell makes more MPF after passing through G1 phase, S phase, and G2 phase.

By activating the APC/C, MPF regulates itself!

Quiz

1. Which of the following is NOT a reason why interphase is necessary? A. Daughter cells begin life with only one copy of their DNA. B. Daughter cells begin life small, without sufficient cellular machinery to pass on to daughter cells. C. If cells performed mitosis repeatedly without going through interphase, each generation of daughter cells would be progressively smaller. D. All of the above.

Answer to Question #1

D is correct. Cells must go through interphase in order to grow, copy their DNA, and ensure that they are prepared to create a healthy new generation of daughter cells.

2. Which of the following organism would you NOT expect to use the cell cycle described here? A. A daisy B. A kitten C. An archaebacteria D. None of the above

Answer to Question #2

C is correct. Archaebacteria and “true bacteria” are prokaryotes. They reproduce using a similar, but simpler cycle of growth and division.

3. Which of the following is true of the G2 phase? A. It is when the cell’s DNA is copied. B. It is the first phase of the cell cycle after mitosis. C. It contains the important G2/M checkpoint which checks the cell for DNA damage before allowing it to reproduce. D. None of the above.

Answer to Question #3

C is correct. The G2 phase is the last phase before mitosis – and the site of the vital G2/M, which makes cancer less likely by preventing cells with severe DNA damage from reproducing.

References

Cooper, G. M. (1997). The cell: a molecular approach. Washington, DC: ASM Press.

Taylor, W. R., & Stark, G. R. (2001). Regulation of the G2/M transition by p53. Oncogene, 20(15), 1803-1815. doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1204252

Galderisi, U., Jori, F. P., & Giordano, A. (2003). Cell cycle regulation and neural differentiation. Oncogene, 22(33), 5208-5219. doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1206558

[oovitus]

Calories in vs. out? Or hormones? The debate is finally over. Here’s who won.

When it comes to body change, there’s no topic more polarizing than “calories in vs. calories out.” Some argue it’s the be-all and end-all of weight loss. Others say it’s oversimplified and misguided. In this article, we explore every angle of the debate from “eat less, move more,” to hormonal issues, to diets that offer a “metabolic advantage.” In doing so, we answer—once and for all—how important calories in vs. calories out really is. And discuss what it means for you and your clients.  

+++

“You’re either with me, or you’re against me.”

Everyone’s heard this one. But did you know the health and fitness industry has its own version of the saying? It goes: “You’re either with me, or you’re stupid.”

I kid, of course!

But this kind of binary mindset does fuel plenty of heated debates. Especially when it comes to one topic in particular: “calories in vs. calories out,” or CICO.

CICO is an easy way of saying:

When you take in more energy than you burn, you gain weight.

When you take in less energy than you burn, you lose weight.

This is a fundamental concept in body weight regulation, and about as close to scientific fact as we can get.

Then why is CICO the source of so much disagreement?

It’s all about the extremes.

At one end of the debate there’s a group who believes CICO is straightforward. If you aren’t losing weight, the reason is simple: You’re either eating too many calories, or not moving enough, or both. Just eat less and move more.

At the other end is a group who believes CICO is broken (or even a complete myth). These critics say it doesn’t account for hormone imbalances, insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and other health problems that affect metabolism. They often claim certain diets and foods provide a “metabolic advantage,” helping you lose weight without worrying about CICO.

Neither viewpoint is completely wrong.

But neither is completely right, either.

Whether you’re a health and fitness coach tasked with helping clients manage their weight—or you’re trying to learn how to do that for yourself—adopting an extreme position on this topic is problematic; it prevents you from seeing the bigger picture.

This article will add some nuance to the debate.

I’ll start by clearing up some misconceptions about CICO. And then explore several real-world examples showing how far-right or far-left views can hold folks back.

Rethinking common misconceptions.

Much of the CICO debate—as with many other debates—stems from misconceptions, oversimplifications, and a failure (by both sides) to find a shared understanding of concepts. So let’s start by getting everyone on the same page for a change.

CICO goes beyond food and exercise.

There’s an important distinction to be made between CICO and “eat less, move more.” But people, especially some CICO advocates, tend to conflate the two.

“Eat less, move more” only takes into account the calories you eat and the calories you burn through exercise and other daily movement. But CICO is really an informal way of expressing the Energy Balance Equation, which is far more involved.

The Energy Balance Equation—and therefore CICO—includes all the complex inner workings of the body, as well as the external factors that ultimately impact “calories in” and “calories out.”

Imperative to this, and often overlooked, is your brain. It’s constantly monitoring and controlling CICO. Think of it as mission control, sending and receiving messages that involve your gut, hormones, organs, muscles, bones, fat cells, external stimuli (and more), to help balance “energy in” and “energy out.”

It’s one hell of a complicated—and beautiful—system.

Yet the Energy Balance Equation itself looks really simple. Here it is:

[Energy in] – [Energy out] = Changes in body stores*

*Body stores refers to all the tissues available for breakdown, such as fat, muscle, organ, and bone. I purposely haven’t used “change in body weight” here because I want to exclude water weight, which can change body weight independent of energy balance. In other words, water is a confusing, confounding variable that tricks people into thinking energy balance is broken when it’s not.

With this equation, “energy in” and “energy out” aren’t just calories from food and exercise. As you can see in the illustration below, all kinds of factors influence these two variables.

When you view CICO through through this lens—by zooming out for a wider perspective—you can see boiling it down to “eat less, move more” is a significant oversimplification.

Calorie calculators and CICO aren’t the same.

Many people use calorie calculators to estimate their energy needs, and to  approximate how many calories they’ve eaten. But sometimes these tools don’t seem to work. As a result, these individuals start to question whether CICO is broken. (Or whether they’re broken).

The key words here are “estimate” and “approximate.”

That’s because calorie calculators aren’t necessarily accurate.

For starters, they provide an output based on averages, and can be off by as much as 20-30 percent in normal, young, healthy people. They may vary even more in older, clinical, or obese populations.

And that’s just on the “energy out” side.

The number of calories you eat—or your “energy in”—is also just an estimate.

For example, the FDA allows inaccuracies of up to 20% on label calorie counts, and research shows restaurant nutrition information can be off by 100-300 calories per food item.

What’s more, even if you were able to accurately weigh and measure every morsel you eat, you still wouldn’t have an exact “calories in” number. That’s because there are other confounding factors, such as:

We don’t absorb all of the calories we consume. And absorption rates vary across food types. (Example: We absorb more calories than estimated from fiber-rich foods, and less calories than estimated from nuts and seeds.)

We all absorb calories uniquely based on our individual gut bacteria.

Cooking, blending, or chopping food generally makes more calories available for absorption than may appear on a nutrition label.

Of course, this doesn’t mean CICO doesn’t work. It only means the tools we have to estimate “calories in” and “calories out” are limited.

To be crystal clear: Calorie calculators can still be very helpful for some people. But it’s important to be aware of their limitations. If you’re going to use one, do so as a rough starting point, not a definitive “answer.”

CICO doesn’t require calorie counting.

At Precision Nutrition, sometimes we use calorie counting to help clients improve their food intake. Other times we use hand portions. And other times we use more intuitive approaches.

For example, let’s say a client wants to lose weight, but they’re not seeing the results they want. If they’re counting calories or using hand portions, we might use those numbers as a reference to further reduce the amount of food they’re eating. But we also might encourage them to use other techniques instead. Like eating slowly, or until they’re 80 percent full.

In every case—whether we’re talking numbers or not — we’re manipulating “energy in.” Sometimes directly; sometimes indirectly. So make no mistake: Even when we’re not “counting calories,” CICO still applies.

CICO might sound simple, but it’s not.

There’s no getting around it: If you (or a client) aren’t losing weight, you either need to decrease “energy in” or increase “energy out.” But as you’ve already seen, that may involve far more than just pushing away your plate or spending more time at the gym.

For instance, it may require you to:

Get more high-quality sleep to better regulate hunger hormones, improve recovery, and increase metabolic output

Try stress resilience techniques like meditation, deep breathing, and spending time in nature

Increase your daily non-exercise movement by parking the car a few blocks away from your destination, taking the stairs, and/or standing while you work

Trade some high-intensity exercise for lower-intensity activities, in order to aid recovery and reduce systemic stress

Improve the quality of what you’re eating, as opposed to reducing the quantity. This can allow you to eat more food with fewer total calories

Tinker with the macronutrient makeup of what you eat. For example: eating more protein and fiber, or increasing carbs and lowering fats, or vice versa

Experiment with the frequency and timing of your meals and snacks, based on personal preferences and appetite cues

Consider temporarily tracking your food intake—via hand portions or weighing/measuring—to ensure you’re eating what you think you’re eating (as closely as reasonably possible)

Evaluate and correct nutritional deficiencies, for more energy during workouts (and in everyday life)

Consult with your physician or specialists if consistent lifestyle changes aren’t moving the needle

Sometimes the solutions are obvious; sometimes they aren’t. But with CICO, the answers are there, if you keep your mind open and examine every factor.

Imagine yourself a “calorie conductor” who oversees and fine-tunes many actions to create metabolic harmony. You’re looking for anything that could be out of sync.

This takes lots of practice.

So, to help, here are 5 common energy balance dilemmas. In each case, it might be tempting to assume CICO doesn’t apply. But look a little a deeper, and you’ll see the principles of CICO are always present.

5 common energy balance dilemmas.

Dilemma #1: “I’ve been eating the same way forever, but suddenly I started gaining weight.”

Can you guess what happened?

More than likely, “energy in” or “energy out” did change, but in a way that felt out of control or unnoticeable.

The culprit could be:

Slight increases in food intake, due to changes in mood, hunger, or stress

An increase in the amount of energy absorbed—caused by new medication, an unknown medical condition, or a history of chronic dieting

Physiological changes that resulted in fewer calories burned during exercise and at rest

The onset of chronic pain, provoking a dramatic decrease in non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT)

Significant changes to sleep quality and/or quantity, impacting metabolic output and/or food consumed

In all of these cases, CICO is still valid. Energy balance just shifted in subtle ways, due to lifestyle and health status changes, making it hard to recognize.

Dilemma #2: “My hormones are wreaking havoc on my metabolism, and I can’t stop gaining weight. Help!”

Hormones seem like a logical scapegoat for weight changes.

And while they’re probably not to blame as often as people think, hormones are intricately entwined with energy balance.

But even so, they don’t operate independently of energy balance.

In other words, people don’t gain weight because “hormones.”

They gain weight because their hormones are impacting their energy balance.

This often happens during menopause or when thyroid hormone levels decline.

Take, for example, triiodothyronine (T3) and thyroxine (T4), two thyroid hormones that are incredibly important for metabolic function. If levels of these hormones diminish, weight gain may occur. But this doesn’t negate CICO: Your hormones are simply influencing “energy out.”

This may seem a bit like splitting hairs, but it’s an important connection to make, whether we’re talking about menopause or thyroid problems or insulin resistance or other hormonal issues.

By understanding CICO is the true determinant of weight loss, you’ll have many more tools for achieving the outcome you want.

Suppose you’re working from the false premise hormones are the only thing that matters. This can lead to increasingly unhelpful decisions, like spending a large sum of money on unnecessary supplements, or adhering to an overly restrictive diet that backfires in the long run.

Instead, you know results are dependent on the fact that “energy in” or “energy out” has changed. Now, this change can be due to hormones, and if so, you’ll have to make adjustments to your eating, exercise, and/or lifestyle habits to account for it. (This could include taking medication prescribed by your doctor, if appropriate.)

Research suggests people with mild (10-15% of the population) to moderate hypothyroidism (2-3%) may experience a metabolic slow down of 140 to 360 calories a day.

That can be enough to lead to weight gain, or make it harder to lose weight. (One caveat: Mild hypothyroidism can be so mild many people don’t experience a significant shift in metabolic activity, making it a non-issue.)

What’s more, women suffering from polycystic ovary syndrome, or PCOS (about 5-10%), and those going through menopause, may also experience hormonal changes that disrupt energy balance.

So, it’s important to understand your (or your client’s) health status, as that will provide valuable information about the unique challenges involved and how you should proceed.

Dilemma #3: “I’m only eating 1,000 calories a day and I’m still not losing weight!”

So what gives?

The conclusion most people jump to: Their metabolism is broken. They’re broken. And CICO is broken.

But here’s the deal: Metabolic damage isn’t really a thing. Even though it may seem that way.

Now, their energy balance challenge could be related to a hormonal issue, as discussed above. However, when someone’s eating 1,000 calories a day but not losing weight, it’s usually due to one of the two reasons that follow.

(No matter how simple they sound, this is what we’ve seen over and over again in our coaching program, with over 100,000 clients.)

Reason #1: People often underestimate their calorie intake.

It’s easy to miscalculate how much you’re eating, as it’s usually unintentional. The most typical ways people do it:

They underestimate portions. (For example, without precisely measuring “one tablespoon of peanut butter,” it might actually be two, which adds 90 calories each time you do it)

They don’t track bites, licks, and tastes of calorie-dense foods. (For example, your kid’s leftover mac and cheese could easily add 100 calories)

They don’t record everything in the moment and forget to log it later on

They “forget” to count foods they’d wished they hadn’t eaten

Don’t believe this can be a big issue?

A landmark study, and repeated follow up studies, found people often underestimate how much they eat over the course of a day, sometimes by more than 1,000 calories.

I’m not bringing this research up to suggest it’s impossible to be realistic about portion sizes. But if you (or your clients) aren’t seeing results on a low-calorie diet, it’s worth considering that underestimation may be the problem.

Reason #2: People overeat on the weekends.

Work weeks can be stressful and when Friday night rolls around, people put their guard down and let loose.

(You probably can’t relate, but just try, okay?)

Here’s how it goes: Let’s say a person is eating 1,500 calories a day on weekdays, which would give them an approximate 500-calorie deficit.

But on the weekends, they deviate from their plan just a little.

Drinks with friends and a few slices of late night pizza on Friday

An extra big lunch after their workout on Saturday

Brunch on Sunday (“Hey, it’s breakfast and lunch, so I can eat double!)

The final tally: An extra 4,000 calories consumed between Friday night and Sunday afternoon. They’ve effectively canceled out their deficit, bumping their average daily calories to 2,071.

The upshot: If you (or your client) have slashed your calories dramatically, but you aren’t seeing the expected results, look for the small slips. It’s like being a metabolic detective who’s following—perhaps literally—the bread crumbs.

By the way, if downtime is problem for you (or a client), we have just the remedy: 5 surprising strategies to ditch weekend overeating.

Dilemma #4: “I’m eating as much as I want and still losing weight, so this diet is better than all the others!”

This might be the top reason some people reject CICO.

Say someone switches from a diet of mostly processed foods to one made up of mostly whole, plant-based foods. They might find they can eat as much food as they want, yet the pounds still melt away.

People often believe this is due to the “power of plants.”

Yes, plants are great, but this doesn’t disprove energy balance.

Because plant foods have a very-low energy density, you can eat a lot of them and still be in a calorie deficit. Especially if your previous intake was filled with lots of processed, hyperpalatable “indulgent foods.”

It feels like you’re eating much more food than ever before—and, in fact, you really might be.

On top of that, you might also feel more satiated because of the volume, fiber, and water content of the plants.

All of which is great. Truly. But it doesn’t negate CICO.

Or take the ketogenic diet, for example.

Here, someone might have a similar experience of “eating as much as they want” and still losing weight, but instead of plant foods, they’re eating meat, cheese, and eggs. Those aren’t low-calorie foods, and they don’t have much fiber, either.

As a result, plenty of low-carb advocates claim keto offers a “metabolic advantage” over other diets.

Here’s what’s most likely happening:

Greater intake of protein increases satiety and reduces appetite

Limited food choices have cut out hundreds of highly-processed calories they might have eaten otherwise (Pasta! Chips! Cookies!)

Reduced food options can also lead to “sensory-specific satiety.” Meaning, when you eat the same foods all the time, they may become less appealing, so you’re not driven to eat as much

Liquid calories—soda, juice, even milk—are generally off limits, so a greater proportion of calories are consumed from solid foods, which are more filling

Higher blood levels of ketones—which rise when carbs are restricted—seem to suppress appetite

For these reasons, people tend to eat fewer calories and feel less hungry.

Although it might seem magical, the keto diet results in weight loss by regulating “energy in” through a variety of ways.

You might ask: If plant-based and keto diets work so well, why should anyone care if it’s because of CICO, or for some other reason?

Because depending on the person—food preferences, lifestyle, activity level, and so on—many diets, including plant-based and keto, aren’t sustainable long-term. This is particularly true of the more restrictive approaches.

And if you (or your client) believe there’s only one “best diet,” you may become frustrated if you aren’t able to stick to it. You may view yourself as a failure and decide you lack the discipline to lose weight. You may even think you should stop trying.

None of which are true.

Your results aren’t diet dependent. They’re behavior dependent.

Maintaining a healthy body (including a healthy body weight) is about developing consistent, sustainable daily habits that help you positively impact “energy in” and “energy out.”

This might be accomplished while enjoying the foods you love, by:

Eating until you’re 80% full

Eating slowly and mindfully

Eating more minimally processed foods

Getting more high quality sleep

Taking steps to reduce stress and build resilience

It’s about viewing CICO from 30,000 feet and figuring out what approach feels sane—and achievable—for you.

Sure, that might include a plant-based or a keto diet, but it absolutely might not, too. And you know what?

You can get great results either way.  

Dilemma #5: “I want to gain weight, but no matter how much I eat, I can’t seem to.”

The CICO conversation doesn’t always revolve around weight loss.

Some people struggle to gain weight.

Especially younger athletes and people who are very, very active at work. (Think: jobs that involve manual labor.)

It also happens with those who are trying to regain lost weight after an illness.

When someone intentionally eats more food but can’t pack on the pounds, it may seem like CICO is invalidated. (Surprise.)

They often feel like they’re stuffing themselves—“I’m eating everything in sight!”—and it’s just not working. But here’s what our coaches have found:

People tend to remember extremes.

Someone might have had six meals in one day, eating as much as they felt like they could stand.

But the following day, they only ate two meals because they were still so full. Maybe they were really busy, too, so they didn’t even think much about it.

The first day—the one where they stuffed themselves—would likely stand out a lot more than the day they ate in accordance with their hunger levels. That’s just human nature.

It’s easy to see how CICO is involved here. It’s lack of consistency on the “energy in” part of the equation.

One solution: Instead of stuffing yourself with 3,000 calories one day, and then eating 1,500 the next, aim for a calorie intake just above the middle you can stick with, and increase it in small amounts over time, if needed.

People often increase activity when they increase calories.

When some people suddenly have more available energy—from eating more food—they’re more likely to do things that increase their energy out. Like taking the stairs, pacing while on the phone, and fidgeting in their seats.

They might even push harder during a workout than they would normally.

This can be both subconscious and subtle.

And though it might sound weird, our coaches have identified this as a legitimate problem for “hardgainers.”

Your charge: Take notice of all your activity.

If you can’t curtail some of it, you may have to compensate by eating even more food. Nutrient- and calorie-dense foods like nut butters, whole grains, and oils can help, especially if you’re challenged by your lack of appetite.

3 strategies to game the system.

Once you accept that CICO is both complex and inescapable, you may find yourself up against one very common challenge.

Namely: “I can’t eat any less than I am now!”

This is one of the top reasons people abandon their weight loss efforts or go searching in vain for a miracle diet.

But here are three simple strategies you (or your clients) can use to create a caloric deficit, even if it seems impossible. It’s all about figuring out which one works best for you.

Maximize protein and fiber.

Consuming higher amounts of protein increases satiety, helping you feel more satisfied between meals. And consuming higher amounts of fiber increases satiation, helping you feel more satisfied during meals.

These are both proven in research and practice to help you feel more satisfied overall while eating fewer calories, leading to easier fat loss.

This advice can sound trite, I know. In fact, someday when there are nutrition coach robots, “eat more protein and fiber” will probably be the first thing they’re programmed to say.

But the truth is, most people trying to lose weight still aren’t focused on getting plenty of these two nutrients.

And you know what? It’s not their fault.

When it comes to diets, almost everyone has been told to subtract. Take away the “bad” stuff, and only eat the “good” stuff.

But there’s another approach: Just start by adding.

If you make a concerted effort to increase protein (especially lean protein) and fiber intake (especially from vegetables), you’ll feel more satisfied.

You’ll also be less tempted by all the foods you think you should be avoiding. This helps to automatically “crowd out” ultra-processed foods.

Which leads to another big benefit: By eating more whole foods and fewer of the processed kind, you’re actually retraining your brain to desire those indulgent, ultra-processed foods less.

That’s when a cool thing happens: You start eating fewer calories without actively trying to—rather than purposely restricting because you have to.

That makes weight loss easier.

Starting is simple: For protein, add one palm of relatively lean protein—chicken, fish, tempeh—to one meal. This is beyond what you would have had otherwise. Or have a Super Shake as a meal or snack.

For fiber, add one serving of high-fiber food—in particular vegetables, fruit, lentils and beans—to your regular intake. This might mean having an apple for a snack, including a fistful of roasted carrots at dinner, or tossing in a handful of spinach in your Super Shake.

Try this for two weeks, and then add another palm of lean protein, and one more serving of high-fiber foods.

Besides all the upside we’ve discussed so far, there’s also this:

Coming to the table with a mindset of abundance—rather than scarcity—can help you avoid those anxious, frustrated feelings that often come with being deprived of the foods you love.

So instead of saying, “Ugh, I really don’t think I can give up my nightly wine and chocolate habit,” you might say, “Hey, look at all this delicious, healthy food I can feed my body!”

(And by the way, you don’t actually have to give up your wine and chocolate habit, at least not to initiate progress.)

Shift your perspective.

Imagine you’re on vacation. You slept in and missed breakfast.

Of course, you don’t really mind because you’re relaxed and having a great time. And there’s no reason to panic: Lunch will happen.

But since you’ve removed a meal, you end up eating a few hundred calories less than normal for the day, effectively creating a deficit.

Given you’re in an environment where you feel calm and happy, you hardly even notice.

Now suppose you wake up on a regular day, and you’re actively trying to lose weight. (To get ready for vacation!)

You might think: “I only get to have my 400-calorie breakfast, and it’s not enough food. This is the worst. I’m going to be so hungry all day!”

So you head to work feeling stressed, counting down the minutes to your next snack or meal. Maybe you even start to feel deprived and miserable.

Here’s the thing: You were in a calorie deficit both days, but your subjective experience of each was completely different.

What if you could adjust your thinking to be more like the first scenario rather then the second?

Of course, I’m not suggesting you skip breakfast everyday (unless that’s just your preference).

But if you can manage to see eating less as something you happen to be doing— rather than something you must do—it may end up feeling a lot less terrible.

Add activity rather than subtracting calories.

Are you a person who doesn’t want to eat less, but would happily move more? If so, you might be able to take advantage of something I’ve called G-Flux.

G-Flux, also known as “energy flux,” is the total amount of energy that flows in and out of a system.

As an example, say you want to create a 500-calorie deficit. That could like this:

Energy in: 2,000 calories

Energy out: 2,500 calories

Deficit: 500 calories

But it could also look like this:

Energy in: 3,000 calories

Energy out: 3,500 calories

Deficit: 500 calories

In both scenarios, you’ve achieved a 500-calorie deficit, but the second allows you to eat a lot more food.

That’s one benefit of a greater G-Flux.

But there’s also another: Research suggests if you’re eating food from high-quality sources and doing a variety of workouts—strength training, conditioning, and recovery work—eating more calories can help you carry more lean mass and less fat.

That’s because the increased exercise doesn’t just serve to boost your “energy out.” It also changes nutrient partitioning, sending more calories toward muscle growth and fewer to your fat cells.

Plus, since you’re eating more food, you have more opportunity to get the quantities of vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients you need in order to feel your best.

Win. Win. Win.

To be clear, this is a somewhat advanced method. And because metabolism and energy balance are dynamic in nature, the effectiveness of this method may vary from person to person.

Plus, not everyone has the ability or the desire to spend more time exercising. And that’s okay.

But by being flexible with your thinking—and willing to experiment with different ways of influencing CICO—you can find your own personal strategy for tipping energy balance in your (or your clients’) favor.

If you’re a coach, or you want to be…

Learning how to coach clients, patients, friends, or family members through healthy eating and lifestyle changes—in a way that optimizes energy balance for each unique body, personality, and lifestyle—is both an art and a science.

If you’d like to learn more about both, consider the Precision Nutrition Level 1 Certification. The next group kicks off shortly.

What’s it all about?

The Precision Nutrition Level 1 Certification is the world’s most respected nutrition education program. It gives you the knowledge, systems, and tools you need to really understand how food influences a person’s health and fitness. Plus the ability to turn that knowledge into a thriving coaching practice.

Developed over 15 years, and proven with over 100,000 clients and patients, the Level 1 curriculum stands alone as the authority on the science of nutrition and the art of coaching.

Whether you’re already mid-career, or just starting out, the Level 1 Certification is your springboard to a deeper understanding of nutrition, the authority to coach it, and the ability to turn what you know into results.

[Of course, if you’re already a student or graduate of the Level 1 Certification, check out our Level 2 Certification Master Class. It’s an exclusive, year-long mentorship designed for elite professionals looking to master the art of coaching and be part of the top 1% of health and fitness coaches in the world.]

Interested? Add your name to the presale list. You’ll save up to 33% and secure your spot 24 hours before everyone else.

We’ll be opening up spots in our next Precision Nutrition Level 1 Certification on Wednesday, April 3rd, 2019.

If you want to find out more, we’ve set up the following presale list, which gives you two advantages.

Pay less than everyone else. We like to reward people who are eager to boost their credentials and are ready to commit to getting the education they need. So we’re offering a discount of up to 33% off the general price when you sign up for the presale list.

Sign up 24 hours before the general public and increase your chances of getting a spot. We only open the certification program twice per year. Due to high demand, spots in the program are limited and have historically sold out in a matter of hours. But when you sign up for the presale list, we’ll give you the opportunity to register a full 24 hours before anyone else.

If you’re ready for a deeper understanding of nutrition, the authority to coach it, and the ability to turn what you know into results… this is your chance to see what the world’s top professional nutrition coaching system can do for you.

The post Calories in vs. out? Or hormones? The debate is finally over. Here’s who won. appeared first on Precision Nutrition.

Calories in vs. out? Or hormones? The debate is finally over. Here’s who won. published first on https://storeseapharmacy.tumblr.com

[oovitus]

Calories in? Calories out? Hormones? The debate is over. Here’s who won.

When it comes to weight loss, there’s no topic more polarizing than “calories in vs. calories out.” Some argue it’s the be-all and end-all of weight loss. Others say it’s oversimplified and misguided. In this article, we’ll explore every angle of the debate from “eat less, move more,” to thyroid issues and hormonal disruptions, to diets that offer a “metabolic advantage.” We’ll answer, once and for all, how important calories in vs. calories out really is. And what it means for you and your clients.  

+++

“You’re with me, or you’re against me.”

Everyone’s heard this one. But did you know the health and fitness industry has its own version of the saying? It goes: “You’re with me, or you’re stupid.”

I kid, of course!

But this kind of binary mindset does fuel plenty of heated debates. Especially when it comes to one particular lightning rod topic: “calories in vs. calories out,” or CICO.

CICO is an easy way of saying:

When you take in more energy than you burn, you gain weight.

When you take in less energy than you burn, you lose weight.

This is a fundamental concept in body weight regulation, and about as close to scientific fact as we can get.

Then why is CICO the source of so much disagreement?

It’s all about the extremes.

At one end of the debate there’s a group who believes CICO is straightforward. If you aren’t losing weight, the reason is simple: You’re either eating too many calories, or not moving enough, or both. Just eat less and move more.

At the other end is a group who believes CICO is broken (or even a complete myth). These critics say it doesn’t account for hormone imbalances, insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and other health problems that affect metabolism. They often claim certain diets and foods provide a “metabolic advantage,” helping you lose weight without worrying about CICO.

Neither viewpoint is completely wrong.

But neither is completely right, either.

Whether you’re a health and fitness coach tasked with helping clients manage their weight—or you’re trying to learn how to do that for yourself—adopting an extreme position on this topic is problematic; it prevents you from seeing the bigger picture.

This article will add some nuance to the debate.

I’ll start by clearing up some misconceptions about CICO. And then explore several real-world examples showing how far-right or far-left views can hold folks back.

Rethinking common misconceptions.

Much of the CICO debate—as with many other debates—stems from misconceptions, oversimplifications, and a failure (by both sides) to find a shared understanding of concepts. So let’s start by getting everyone on the same page.

CICO goes beyond food and exercise.

There’s an important distinction to be made between CICO and “eat less, move more.” But people, especially some CICO advocates, tend to conflate the two.

“Eat less, move more” only takes into account the calories you eat and the calories you burn through exercise and other daily movement. But CICO is really an informal way of expressing the Energy Balance Equation, which is far more involved.

The Energy Balance Equation—and therefore CICO—includes all the complex inner workings of the body, as well as the external factors that ultimately impact “calories in” and “calories out.”

Imperative to this, and often overlooked, is your brain. It’s constantly monitoring and controlling CICO. Think of it as mission control, sending and receiving messages that involve your gut, hormones, organs, muscles, bones, fat cells, external stimuli (and more), to help balance “energy in” and “energy out.”

It’s one hell of a complicated—and beautiful—system.

Yet the Energy Balance Equation itself looks really simple. Here it is:

[Energy in] – [Energy out] = Changes in body stores*

*Body stores refers to all the tissues available for breakdown, such as fat, muscle, organ, and bone. I purposely haven’t used “change in body weight” here because I want to exclude water weight, which can change body weight independent of energy balance. In other words, water is a confusing, confounding variable that tricks people into thinking energy balance is broken when it’s not.

With this equation, “energy in” and “energy out” aren’t just calories from food and exercise. As you can see in the illustration below, all kinds of factors influence these two variables.

When you view CICO through through this lens—by zooming out for a wider perspective—you can see boiling it down to “eat less, move more” is a serious oversimplification.

Calorie calculators and CICO aren’t the same.

Many people use calorie calculators to estimate their energy needs, and to  approximate how many calories they’ve eaten. But sometimes these tools don’t seem to work. As a result, these individuals start to question whether CICO is broken. (Or whether they’re broken).

The key words here are “estimate” and “approximate.”

That’s because calorie calculators aren’t necessarily accurate.

For starters, they provide an output based on averages, and can be off by as much as 20-30 percent in normal, young, healthy people. They may vary even more in older, clinical, or obese populations.

And that’s just on the “energy out” side.

The number of calories you eat—or your “energy in”—is also just an estimate.

For example, the FDA allows inaccuracies of up to 20% on label calorie counts, and research shows restaurant nutrition information can be off by 100-300 calories per food item.

What’s more, even if you were able to accurately weigh and measure every morsel you eat, you still wouldn’t have an exact “calories in” number. That’s because there are other confounding factors, such as:

We don’t absorb all of the calories we consume. And absorption rates vary across food types. (Example: We absorb more calories than estimated from fiber-rich foods, and less calories than estimated from nuts and seeds.)

We all absorb calories uniquely based on our individual gut bacteria.

Cooking, blending, or chopping food generally makes more calories available for absorption than may appear on a nutrition label or in calorie databases.

Of course, this doesn’t mean CICO doesn’t work. It only means the tools we have to estimate “calories in” and “calories out” are limited.

To be crystal clear: Calorie calculators can still be very helpful for some people. But it’s important to be aware of their limitations. If you’re going to use one, do so as a rough starting point, not a definitive “answer.”

CICO doesn’t require calorie counting.

At Precision Nutrition, sometimes we use calorie counting to help clients improve their food intake. Other times we use hand portions. And other times we use more intuitive approaches.

For example, let’s say a client wants to lose weight, but they’re not seeing the results they want. If they’re counting calories or using hand portions, we might use those numbers as a reference to further reduce the amount of food they’re eating. But we also might encourage them to use other techniques instead. Like eating slowly, or until they’re 80 percent full.

In every case—whether we’re talking numbers or not — we’re manipulating “energy in.” Sometimes directly; sometimes indirectly. So make no mistake: Even when we’re not “counting calories,” CICO still applies.

CICO might sound simple, but it’s not.

There’s no getting around it: If you (or a client) aren’t losing weight, you either need to decrease “energy in” or increase “energy out.” But as you’ve seen, that may involve far more than just pushing away your plate or spending more time at the gym.

For instance, it may require you to:

Get more high-quality sleep to better regulate hunger hormones, improve recovery, and increase metabolic output

Try stress resilience techniques like meditation, deep breathing, and spending time in nature

Increase your daily non-exercise movement by parking the car a few blocks away from your destination, taking the stairs, and/or standing while you work

Trade some high-intensity exercise for lower-intensity activities, in order to aid recovery and reduce systemic stress

Improve the quality of what you’re eating, as opposed to reducing the quantity. This can allow you to eat more food with fewer total calories

Tinker with the macronutrient makeup of what you eat. For example: eating more protein and fiber, or increasing carbs and lowering fats, or vice versa

Experiment with the frequency and timing of your meals and snacks, based on personal preferences and appetite cues

Consider temporarily tracking your food intake—via hand portions or weighing/measuring—to ensure you’re eating what you think you’re eating (as closely as reasonably possible)

Evaluate and correct nutritional deficiencies, for more energy during workouts (and in everyday life)

Consult with your physician or specialists if consistent lifestyle changes aren’t moving the needle

Sometimes the solutions are obvious; sometimes they aren’t. But with CICO, the answers are there, if you keep your mind open and examine every factor.

Imagine yourself a “calorie conductor” who oversees and fine-tunes many actions to create metabolic harmony. You’re looking for anything that could be out of sync.

This takes lots of practice.

So, to help, here are 5 common energy balance dilemmas. In each case, it might be tempting to assume CICO doesn’t apply. But look a little a deeper, and you’ll see the principles of CICO are always present.

5 common energy balance dilemmas.

Dilemma #1: “I’ve been eating the same way forever, but suddenly I started gaining weight.”

Can you guess what happened?

More than likely, “energy in” or “energy out” did change, but in a way that felt out of control or unnoticeable.

The culprit could be:

Slight increases in food intake, due to changes in mood, hunger, or stress

An increase in the amount of energy absorbed—caused by new medication, an unknown medical condition, or a history of chronic dieting

Physiological changes that resulted in fewer calories burned during exercise and at rest

The onset of chronic pain, provoking a dramatic decrease in non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT)

Significant changes to sleep quality and/or quantity, impacting metabolic output and/or food consumed

In all of these cases, CICO is still valid. Energy balance just shifted in subtle ways, due to lifestyle and health status changes, making it hard to recognize.

Dilemma #2: “My hormones are wreaking havoc on my metabolism, and I can’t stop gaining weight. Help!”

Hormones seem like a logical scapegoat for weight changes.

And while they’re probably not to blame as often as people think, hormones are intricately entwined with energy balance.

But even so, they don’t operate independently of energy balance.

In other words, people don’t gain weight because “hormones.”

They gain weight because their hormones are impacting their energy balance.

This often happens during menopause or when thyroid hormone levels decline.

Take, for example, triiodothyronine (T3) and thyroxine (T4), two thyroid hormones that are incredibly important for metabolic function. If levels of these hormones diminish, weight gain may occur. But this doesn’t negate CICO: Your hormones are simply influencing “energy out.”

This may seem a bit like splitting hairs, but it’s an important connection to make, whether we’re talking about menopause or thyroid problems or insulin resistance or other hormonal issues.

By understanding CICO is the true determinant of weight loss, you’ll have many more tools for achieving the outcome you want.

Suppose you’re working from the false premise hormones are the only thing that matters. This can lead to increasingly unhelpful decisions, like spending a large sum of money on unnecessary supplements, or adhering to an overly restrictive diet that backfires in the long run.

Instead, you know results are dependent on the fact that “energy in” or “energy out” has changed. Now, this change can be due to hormones, and if so, you’ll have to make adjustments to your eating, exercise, and/or lifestyle habits to account for it. (This could include taking medication prescribed by your doctor, if appropriate.)

Research suggests people with mild (10-15% of the population) to moderate hypothyroidism (2-3%) may experience a metabolic slow down of 140 to 360 calories a day.

That can be enough to lead to weight gain, or make it harder to lose weight. (One caveat: Mild hypothyroidism can be so mild many people don’t experience a significant shift in metabolic activity, making it a non-issue.)

What’s more, women suffering from polycystic ovary syndrome, or PCOS (about 5-10%), and those going through menopause, may also experience hormonal changes that disrupt energy balance.

So, it’s important to understand your (or your client’s) health status, as that will provide valuable information about the unique challenges involved and how you should proceed.

Dilemma #3: “I’m only eating 1,000 calories a day and I’m still not losing weight!”

So what gives?

The conclusion most people jump to: Their metabolism is broken. They’re broken. And CICO is broken.

But here’s the deal: Metabolic damage isn’t really a thing. Even though it may seem that way.

Now, their energy balance challenge could be related to a hormonal issue, as discussed above. However, when someone’s eating 1,000 calories a day but not losing weight, it’s usually due to one of the two reasons that follow.

(No matter how simple they sound, this is what we’ve seen over and over again in our coaching program, with over 100,000 clients.)

Reason #1: People often underestimate their calorie intake.

It’s easy to miscalculate how much you’re eating, as it’s usually unintentional. The most typical ways people do it:

They underestimate portions. (For example, without precisely measuring “one tablespoon of peanut butter,” it might actually be two, which adds 90 calories each time you do it)

They don’t track bites, licks, and tastes of calorie-dense foods. (For example, your kid’s leftover mac and cheese, which could easily add 100 calories)

They don’t record everything in the moment and forget to log it later on

They “forget” to count foods they’d wished they hadn’t eaten

Don’t believe this can be a big issue?

A landmark study, and repeated follow up studies, found people often underestimate how much they eat over the course of a day, sometimes by more than 1,000 calories.

I’m not bringing this research up to suggest it’s impossible to be realistic about portion sizes. But if you (or your clients) aren’t seeing results on a low-calorie diet, it’s worth considering that underestimation may be the problem.

Reason #2: People overeat on the weekends.

Work weeks can be stressful and when Friday night rolls around, people put their guard down and let loose.

(You probably can’t relate, but just try, okay?)

Here’s how it goes: Let’s say a person is eating 1,500 calories a day on weekdays, which would give them an approximate 500-calorie deficit.

But on the weekends, they deviate from their plan just a little.

Drinks with friends and a few slices of late night pizza on Friday

An extra big lunch after their workout on Saturday

Brunch on Sunday (“Hey, it’s breakfast and lunch, so I can eat double!)

The final tally: An extra 4,000 calories consumed between Friday night and Sunday afternoon. They’ve effectively canceled out their deficit, bumping their average daily calories to 2,071.

The upshot: If you (or your client) have slashed your calories dramatically, but you aren’t seeing the expected results, look for the small slips. It’s like being a metabolic detective who’s following—perhaps literally—the bread crumbs.

By the way, if downtime is problem for you (or a client), we have just the remedy: 5 surprising strategies to ditch weekend overeating.

Dilemma #4: “I’m eating as much as I want and still losing weight, so this diet is better than all the others!”

This might be the top reason some people reject CICO.

Say someone switches from a diet of mostly processed foods to one made up of mostly whole, plant-based foods. They might find they can eat as much food as they want, yet the pounds still melt away.

People often believe this is due to the “power of plants.”

Yes, plants are great, but this doesn’t disprove energy balance.

Because plant foods have a very-low energy density, you can eat a lot of them and still be in a calorie deficit. Especially if your previous intake was filled with lots of processed, hyperpalatable “indulgent foods.”

It feels like you’re eating much more food than ever before—and you really might be.

On top of that, you might also feel more satiated because of the volume, fiber, and water content of the plants.

All of which is great. Truly. But it doesn’t negate CICO.

Or take the ketogenic diet, for example.

Here, someone might have a similar experience of “eating as much as they want” and still losing weight, but instead of plant foods, they’re eating meat, cheese, and eggs. Those aren’t low-calorie foods, and they don’t have much fiber, either.

As a result, plenty of low-carb advocates claim keto offers a “metabolic advantage” over other diets.

Here’s what’s most likely happening:

Greater intake of protein increases satiety and reduces appetite

Limited food choices have cut out hundreds of highly-processed calories they might have eaten otherwise (Pasta! Chips! Cookies!)

Reduced food options can also lead to “sensory-specific satiety.” Meaning, when you eat the same foods all the time, they may become less appealing, so you’re not driven to eat as much

Liquid calories—soda, juice, even milk—are generally a no-go, so a greater proportion of calories are consumed from solid foods, which are more filling

Higher blood levels of ketones—which rise when carbs are restricted—seem to suppress appetite

For these reasons, people tend to eat fewer calories and feel less hungry.

Although it might seem magical, the keto diet results in weight loss by regulating “energy in” through a variety of ways.

You might ask: If plant-based and keto diets work so well, why should anyone care if it’s because of CICO, or for some other reason?

Because depending on the person—food preferences, lifestyle, activity level, and so on—many diets, including plant-based and keto, aren’t sustainable long-term. This is particularly true of the more restrictive approaches.

And if you (or your client) believe there’s only one “best diet,” you may become frustrated if you aren’t able to stick to it. You may view yourself as a failure and decide you lack the discipline to lose weight. You may even think you should stop trying.

None of which are true.

Your results aren’t diet dependent. They’re behavior dependent.

Maintaining a healthy body (including a healthy body weight) is about developing consistent, sustainable daily habits that help you positively impact “energy in” and “energy out.”

This might be accomplished while enjoying the foods you love, by:

Eating until you’re 80% full

Eating slowly and mindfully

Eating more minimally processed foods

Getting more high quality sleep

Taking steps to reduce stress and build resilience

It’s about viewing CICO from 30,000 feet and figuring out what approach feels sane—and achievable—for you.

Sure, that might include a plant-based or a keto diet, but it absolutely might not, too. And you know what?

You can get great results either way.  

Dilemma #5: “I want to gain weight, but no matter how much I eat, I can’t seem to.”

The CICO conversation doesn’t always revolve around weight loss. Nor should it.

Some people struggle to gain weight.

Especially younger athletes and people who are very, very active at work. (Think: jobs that involve manual labor.)

It also happens with those who are trying to regain lost weight after an illness.

When someone intentionally eats more food but can’t pack on the pounds, it may seem like CICO is invalidated. (Surprise.)

They often feel like they’re stuffing themselves—“I’m eating everything in sight!”—and it’s just not working. But here’s what our coaches have found:

People tend to remember extremes.

Someone might’ve had six meals in one day, eating as much as they could stand.

But the following day, they only ate two meals because they were still so full. Maybe they were really busy, too, so they didn’t even think much about it.

The first day—the one where they stuffed themselves—would likely stand out a lot more than the day they ate in accordance with their hunger levels. That’s just human nature.

It’s easy to see how CICO is involved here. It’s lack of consistency on the “energy in” part of the equation.

One solution: Instead of stuffing yourself with 3,000 calories one day, and then eating 1,500 the next, aim for a calorie intake just above the middle you can stick with, and increase it in small amounts over time, if needed.

People often increase activity when they increase calories.

When some people suddenly have more available energy—from eating more food—they’re more likely to do things that increase their energy out. Like taking the stairs, pacing while on the phone, and fidgeting in their seats.

They might even push harder during a workout than they would normally.

This can be both subconscious and subtle.

And though it might sound weird, our coaches have identified this as a legitimate problem for “hardgainers.”

Your charge: Take notice of all your activity.

If you can’t curtail some of it, you may have to compensate by eating even more food. Nutrient- and calorie-dense foods like nut butters, whole grains, and oils can help, especially if you’re challenged by your lack of appetite.

3 strategies to game the system.

Once you accept that CICO is both complex and inescapable, you may find yourself up against one very common challenge.

Namely: “I can’t eat any less than I am now!”

This is one of the top reasons people abandon their weight loss efforts or go searching in vain for a miracle diet.

But here are three simple strategies you (or your clients) can use to create a caloric deficit, even if it seems impossible. It’s all about figuring out which one works best for you.

Maximize protein and fiber.

Consuming higher amounts of protein increases satiety, helping you feel more satisfied between meals. And consuming higher amounts of fiber increases satiation, helping you feel more satisfied during meals.

These are both proven in research and practice to help you feel more satisfied overall while eating fewer calories, leading to easier fat loss.

This advice can sound trite, I know. In fact, someday when there are nutrition coach robots, “eat more protein and fiber” will probably be the first thing they’re programmed to say.

But the truth is, most people trying to lose weight still aren’t focused on getting plenty of these two nutrients.

And you know what? It’s not their fault.

When it comes to diets, almost everyone has been told to subtract. Take away the “bad” stuff, and only eat the “good” stuff.

But there’s another approach: Just start by adding.

If you make a concerted effort to increase protein (especially lean protein) and fiber intake (especially from vegetables), you’ll feel more satisfied.

You’ll also be less tempted by all the foods you think you should be avoiding. This helps to automatically “crowd out” ultra-processed foods.

Which leads to another big benefit: By eating more whole foods and fewer of the processed kind, you’re actually retraining your brain to desire those indulgent, ultra-processed foods less.

That’s when a cool thing happens: You start eating fewer calories without actively trying to—rather than purposely restricting because you have to.

That makes weight loss easier.

Starting is simple: For protein, add one palm of relatively lean protein—chicken, fish, tempeh—to one meal. This is beyond what you would have had otherwise. Or have a Super Shake as a meal or snack.

For fiber, add one serving of high-fiber food—in particular vegetables, fruit, lentils and beans—to your regular intake. This might mean having an apple for a snack, including a fistful of roasted carrots at dinner, or tossing in a handful of spinach in your Super Shake.

Try this for two weeks, and then add another palm of lean protein, and one more serving of high-fiber foods.

Besides all the upside we’ve discussed so far, there’s also this:

Coming to the table with a mindset of abundance—rather than scarcity—can help you avoid those anxious, frustrated feelings that often come with being deprived of the foods you love.

So instead of saying, “Ugh, I really don’t think I can give up my nightly wine and chocolate habit,” you might say, “Hey, look at all this delicious, healthy food I can feed my body!”

(And by the way, you don’t actually have to give up your wine and chocolate habit, at least not to initiate progress.)

Shift your perspective.

Imagine you’re on vacation. You slept in and missed breakfast.

Of course, you don’t really mind because you’re relaxed and having a great time. And there’s no reason to panic: Lunch will happen.

But since you’ve removed a meal, you end up eating a few hundred calories less than normal for the day, effectively creating a deficit.

Given you’re in an environment where you feel calm and happy, you hardly even notice.

Now suppose you wake up on a regular day, and you’re actively trying to lose weight. (To get ready for vacation!)

You might think: “I only get to have my 400-calorie breakfast, and it’s not enough food. This is the worst. I’m going to be so hungry all day!”

So you head to work feeling stressed, counting down the minutes to your next snack or meal. Maybe you even start to feel deprived and miserable.

Here’s the thing: You were in a calorie deficit both days, but your subjective experience of each was completely different.

What if you could adjust your thinking to be more like the first scenario rather then the second?

Of course, I’m not suggesting you skip breakfast everyday (unless that’s your preference).

But if you can manage to see eating less as something you happen to be doing— rather than something you have to do—it may end up feeling a lot less terrible.

Add activity rather than subtracting calories.

Are you a person who doesn’t want to eat less, but would happily move more? If so, you might be able to take advantage of something I’ve called G-Flux.

G-Flux, also known as “energy flux,” is the total amount of energy that flows in and out of a system.

As an example, say you want to create a 500-calorie deficit. That could like this:

Energy in: 2,000 calories

Energy out: 2,500 calories

Deficit: 500 calories

But it could also look like this:

Energy in: 3,000 calories

Energy out: 3,500 calories

Deficit: 500 calories

In both scenarios, you’ve achieved a 500-calorie deficit, but the second allows you to eat a lot more food.

That’s one benefit of a greater G-Flux.

But there’s also another: Research suggests if you’re eating food from high-quality sources and doing a variety of workouts—strength training, conditioning, and recovery work—eating more calories can help you carry more lean mass and less fat.

That’s because the increased exercise doesn’t just serve to boost your “energy out.” It also changes nutrient partitioning, sending more calories toward muscle growth and fewer to your fat cells.

Plus, since you’re eating more food, you have more opportunity to get the quantities of vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients you need in order to feel your best.

Win. Win. Win.

To be clear, this is a somewhat advanced method. And because metabolism and energy balance are dynamic in nature, the effectiveness of this method may vary from person to person.

Plus, not everyone has the ability or the desire to spend more time exercising. And that’s okay.

But by being flexible with your thinking—and willing to experiment with different ways of influencing CICO—you can find your own personal strategy for tipping energy balance in your (or your clients’) favor.

If you’re a coach, or you want to be…

Learning how to coach clients, patients, friends, or family members through healthy eating and lifestyle changes—in a way that optimizes energy balance for each unique body, personality, and lifestyle—is both an art and a science.

If you’d like to learn more about both, consider the Precision Nutrition Level 1 Certification. The next group kicks off shortly.

What’s it all about?

The Precision Nutrition Level 1 Certification is the world’s most respected nutrition education program. It gives you the knowledge, systems, and tools you need to really understand how food influences a person’s health and fitness. Plus the ability to turn that knowledge into a thriving coaching practice.

Developed over 15 years, and proven with over 100,000 clients and patients, the Level 1 curriculum stands alone as the authority on the science of nutrition and the art of coaching.

Whether you’re already mid-career, or just starting out, the Level 1 Certification is your springboard to a deeper understanding of nutrition, the authority to coach it, and the ability to turn what you know into results.

[Of course, if you’re already a student or graduate of the Level 1 Certification, check out our Level 2 Certification Master Class. It’s an exclusive, year-long mentorship designed for elite professionals looking to master the art of coaching and be part of the top 1% of health and fitness coaches in the world.]

Interested? Add your name to the presale list. You’ll save up to 33% and secure your spot 24 hours before everyone else.

We’ll be opening up spots in our next Precision Nutrition Level 1 Certification on Wednesday, April 3rd, 2019.

If you want to find out more, we’ve set up the following presale list, which gives you two advantages.

Pay less than everyone else. We like to reward people who are eager to boost their credentials and are ready to commit to getting the education they need. So we’re offering a discount of up to 33% off the general price when you sign up for the presale list.

Sign up 24 hours before the general public and increase your chances of getting a spot. We only open the certification program twice per year. Due to high demand, spots in the program are limited and have historically sold out in a matter of hours. But when you sign up for the presale list, we’ll give you the opportunity to register a full 24 hours before anyone else.

If you’re ready for a deeper understanding of nutrition, the authority to coach it, and the ability to turn what you know into results… this is your chance to see what the world’s top professional nutrition coaching system can do for you.

The post Calories in? Calories out? Hormones? The debate is over. Here’s who won. appeared first on Precision Nutrition.

Calories in? Calories out? Hormones? The debate is over. Here’s who won. published first on https://storeseapharmacy.tumblr.com

[oovitus]

Calories in? Calories out? Hormones? The debate is over. Here’s who won.

When it comes to weight loss, there’s no topic more polarizing than “calories in vs. calories out.” Some argue it’s the be-all and end-all of weight loss. Others say it’s oversimplified and misguided. In this article, we’ll explore every angle of the debate from “eat less, move more,” to thyroid issues and hormonal disruptions, to diets that offer a “metabolic advantage.” We’ll answer, once and for all, how important calories in vs. calories out really is. And what it means for you and your clients.  

+++

“You’re with me, or you’re against me.”

Everyone’s heard this one. But did you know the health and fitness industry has its own version of the saying? It goes: “You’re with me, or you’re stupid.”

I kid, of course!

But this kind of binary mindset does fuel plenty of heated debates. Especially when it comes to one particular lightning rod topic: “calories in vs. calories out,” or CICO.

CICO is an easy way of saying:

When you take in more energy than you burn, you gain weight.

When you take in less energy than you burn, you lose weight.

This is a fundamental concept in body weight regulation, and about as close to scientific fact as we can get.

Then why is CICO the source of so much disagreement?

It’s all about the extremes.

At one end of the debate there’s a group who believes CICO is straightforward. If you aren’t losing weight, the reason is simple: You’re either eating too many calories, or not moving enough, or both. Just eat less and move more.

At the other end is a group who believes CICO is broken (or even a complete myth). These critics say it doesn’t account for hormone imbalances, insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and other health problems that affect metabolism. They often claim certain diets and foods provide a “metabolic advantage,” helping you lose weight without worrying about CICO.

Neither viewpoint is completely wrong.

But neither is completely right, either.

Whether you’re a health and fitness coach tasked with helping clients manage their weight—or you’re trying to learn how to do that for yourself—adopting an extreme position on this topic is problematic; it prevents you from seeing the bigger picture.

This article will add some nuance to the debate.

I’ll start by clearing up some misconceptions about CICO. And then explore several real-world examples showing how far-right or far-left views can hold folks back.

Rethinking common misconceptions.

Much of the CICO debate—as with many other debates—stems from misconceptions, oversimplifications, and a failure (by both sides) to find a shared understanding of concepts. So let’s start by getting everyone on the same page.

CICO goes beyond food and exercise.

There’s an important distinction to be made between CICO and “eat less, move more.” But people, especially some CICO advocates, tend to conflate the two.

“Eat less, move more” only takes into account the calories you eat and the calories you burn through exercise and other daily movement. But CICO is really an informal way of expressing the Energy Balance Equation, which is far more involved.

The Energy Balance Equation—and therefore CICO—includes all the complex inner workings of the body, as well as the external factors that ultimately impact “calories in” and “calories out.”

Imperative to this, and often overlooked, is your brain. It’s constantly monitoring and controlling CICO. Think of it as mission control, sending and receiving messages that involve your gut, hormones, organs, muscles, bones, fat cells, external stimuli (and more), to help balance “energy in” and “energy out.”

It’s one hell of a complicated—and beautiful—system.

Yet the Energy Balance Equation itself looks really simple. Here it is:

[Energy in] – [Energy out] = Changes in body stores*

*Body stores refers to all the tissues available for breakdown, such as fat, muscle, organ, and bone. I purposely haven’t used “change in body weight” here because I want to exclude water weight, which can change body weight independent of energy balance. In other words, water is a confusing, confounding variable that tricks people into thinking energy balance is broken when it’s not.

With this equation, “energy in” and “energy out” aren’t just calories from food and exercise. As you can see in the illustration below, all kinds of factors influence these two variables.

When you view CICO through through this lens—by zooming out for a wider perspective—you can see boiling it down to “eat less, move more” is a serious oversimplification.

Calorie calculators and CICO aren’t the same.

Many people use calorie calculators to estimate their energy needs, and to  approximate how many calories they’ve eaten. But sometimes these tools don’t seem to work. As a result, these individuals start to question whether CICO is broken. (Or whether they’re broken).

The key words here are “estimate” and “approximate.”

That’s because calorie calculators aren’t necessarily accurate.

For starters, they provide an output based on averages, and can be off by as much as 20-30 percent in normal, young, healthy people. They may vary even more in older, clinical, or obese populations.

And that’s just on the “energy out” side.

The number of calories you eat—or your “energy in”—is also just an estimate.

For example, the FDA allows inaccuracies of up to 20% on label calorie counts, and research shows restaurant nutrition information can be off by 100-300 calories per food item.

What’s more, even if you were able to accurately weigh and measure every morsel you eat, you still wouldn’t have an exact “calories in” number. That’s because there are other confounding factors, such as:

We don’t absorb all of the calories we consume. And absorption rates vary across food types. (Example: We absorb more calories than estimated from fiber-rich foods, and less calories than estimated from nuts and seeds.)

We all absorb calories uniquely based on our individual gut bacteria.

Cooking, blending, or chopping food generally makes more calories available for absorption than may appear on a nutrition label or in calorie databases.

Of course, this doesn’t mean CICO doesn’t work. It only means the tools we have to estimate “calories in” and “calories out” are limited.

To be crystal clear: Calorie calculators can still be very helpful for some people. But it’s important to be aware of their limitations. If you’re going to use one, do so as a rough starting point, not a definitive “answer.”

CICO doesn’t require calorie counting.

At Precision Nutrition, sometimes we use calorie counting to help clients improve their food intake. Other times we use hand portions. And other times we use more intuitive approaches.

For example, let’s say a client wants to lose weight, but they’re not seeing the results they want. If they’re counting calories or using hand portions, we might use those numbers as a reference to further reduce the amount of food they’re eating. But we also might encourage them to use other techniques instead. Like eating slowly, or until they’re 80 percent full.

In every case—whether we’re talking numbers or not — we’re manipulating “energy in.” Sometimes directly; sometimes indirectly. So make no mistake: Even when we’re not “counting calories,” CICO still applies.

CICO might sound simple, but it’s not.

There’s no getting around it: If you (or a client) aren’t losing weight, you either need to decrease “energy in” or increase “energy out.” But as you’ve seen, that may involve far more than just pushing away your plate or spending more time at the gym.

For instance, it may require you to:

Get more high-quality sleep to better regulate hunger hormones, improve recovery, and increase metabolic output

Try stress resilience techniques like meditation, deep breathing, and spending time in nature

Increase your daily non-exercise movement by parking the car a few blocks away from your destination, taking the stairs, and/or standing while you work

Trade some high-intensity exercise for lower-intensity activities, in order to aid recovery and reduce systemic stress

Improve the quality of what you’re eating, as opposed to reducing the quantity. This can allow you to eat more food with fewer total calories

Tinker with the macronutrient makeup of what you eat. For example: eating more protein and fiber, or increasing carbs and lowering fats, or vice versa

Experiment with the frequency and timing of your meals and snacks, based on personal preferences and appetite cues

Consider temporarily tracking your food intake—via hand portions or weighing/measuring—to ensure you’re eating what you think you’re eating (as closely as reasonably possible)

Evaluate and correct nutritional deficiencies, for more energy during workouts (and in everyday life)

Consult with your physician or specialists if consistent lifestyle changes aren’t moving the needle

Sometimes the solutions are obvious; sometimes they aren’t. But with CICO, the answers are there, if you keep your mind open and examine every factor.

Imagine yourself a “calorie conductor” who oversees and fine-tunes many actions to create metabolic harmony. You’re looking for anything that could be out of sync.

This takes lots of practice.

So, to help, here are 5 common energy balance dilemmas. In each case, it might be tempting to assume CICO doesn’t apply. But look a little a deeper, and you’ll see the principles of CICO are always present.

5 common energy balance dilemmas.

Dilemma #1: “I’ve been eating the same way forever, but suddenly I started gaining weight.”

Can you guess what happened?

More than likely, “energy in” or “energy out” did change, but in a way that felt out of control or unnoticeable.

The culprit could be:

Slight increases in food intake, due to changes in mood, hunger, or stress

An increase in the amount of energy absorbed—caused by new medication, an unknown medical condition, or a history of chronic dieting

Physiological changes that resulted in fewer calories burned during exercise and at rest

The onset of chronic pain, provoking a dramatic decrease in non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT)

Significant changes to sleep quality and/or quantity, impacting metabolic output and/or food consumed

In all of these cases, CICO is still valid. Energy balance just shifted in subtle ways, due to lifestyle and health status changes, making it hard to recognize.

Dilemma #2: “My hormones are wreaking havoc on my metabolism, and I can’t stop gaining weight. Help!”

Hormones seem like a logical scapegoat for weight changes.

And while they’re probably not to blame as often as people think, hormones are intricately entwined with energy balance.

But even so, they don’t operate independently of energy balance.

In other words, people don’t gain weight because “hormones.”

They gain weight because their hormones are impacting their energy balance.

This often happens during menopause or when thyroid hormone levels decline.

Take, for example, triiodothyronine (T3) and thyroxine (T4), two thyroid hormones that are incredibly important for metabolic function. If levels of these hormones diminish, weight gain may occur. But this doesn’t negate CICO: Your hormones are simply influencing “energy out.”

This may seem a bit like splitting hairs, but it’s an important connection to make, whether we’re talking about menopause or thyroid problems or insulin resistance or other hormonal issues.

By understanding CICO is the true determinant of weight loss, you’ll have many more tools for achieving the outcome you want.

Suppose you’re working from the false premise hormones are the only thing that matters. This can lead to increasingly unhelpful decisions, like spending a large sum of money on unnecessary supplements, or adhering to an overly restrictive diet that backfires in the long run.

Instead, you know results are dependent on the fact that “energy in” or “energy out” has changed. Now, this change can be due to hormones, and if so, you’ll have to make adjustments to your eating, exercise, and/or lifestyle habits to account for it. (This could include taking medication prescribed by your doctor, if appropriate.)

Research suggests people with mild (10-15% of the population) to moderate hypothyroidism (2-3%) may experience a metabolic slow down of 140 to 360 calories a day.

That can be enough to lead to weight gain, or make it harder to lose weight. (One caveat: Mild hypothyroidism can be so mild many people don’t experience a significant shift in metabolic activity, making it a non-issue.)

What’s more, women suffering from polycystic ovary syndrome, or PCOS (about 5-10%), and those going through menopause, may also experience hormonal changes that disrupt energy balance.

So, it’s important to understand your (or your client’s) health status, as that will provide valuable information about the unique challenges involved and how you should proceed.

Dilemma #3: “I’m only eating 1,000 calories a day and I’m still not losing weight!”

So what gives?

The conclusion most people jump to: Their metabolism is broken. They’re broken. And CICO is broken.

But here’s the deal: Metabolic damage isn’t really a thing. Even though it may seem that way.

Now, their energy balance challenge could be related to a hormonal issue, as discussed above. However, when someone’s eating 1,000 calories a day but not losing weight, it’s usually due to one of the two reasons that follow.

(No matter how simple they sound, this is what we’ve seen over and over again in our coaching program, with over 100,000 clients.)

Reason #1: People often underestimate their calorie intake.

It’s easy to miscalculate how much you’re eating, as it’s usually unintentional. The most typical ways people do it:

They underestimate portions. (For example, without precisely measuring “one tablespoon of peanut butter,” it might actually be two, which adds 90 calories each time you do it)

They don’t track bites, licks, and tastes of calorie-dense foods. (For example, your kid’s leftover mac and cheese, which could easily add 100 calories)

They don’t record everything in the moment and forget to log it later on

They “forget” to count foods they’d wished they hadn’t eaten

Don’t believe this can be a big issue?

A landmark study, and repeated follow up studies, found people often underestimate how much they eat over the course of a day, sometimes by more than 1,000 calories.

I’m not bringing this research up to suggest it’s impossible to be realistic about portion sizes. But if you (or your clients) aren’t seeing results on a low-calorie diet, it’s worth considering that underestimation may be the problem.

Reason #2: People overeat on the weekends.

Work weeks can be stressful and when Friday night rolls around, people put their guard down and let loose.

(You probably can’t relate, but just try, okay?)

Here’s how it goes: Let’s say a person is eating 1,500 calories a day on weekdays, which would give them an approximate 500-calorie deficit.

But on the weekends, they deviate from their plan just a little.

Drinks with friends and a few slices of late night pizza on Friday

An extra big lunch after their workout on Saturday

Brunch on Sunday (“Hey, it’s breakfast and lunch, so I can eat double!)

The final tally: An extra 4,000 calories consumed between Friday night and Sunday afternoon. They’ve effectively canceled out their deficit, bumping their average daily calories to 2,071.

The upshot: If you (or your client) have slashed your calories dramatically, but you aren’t seeing the expected results, look for the small slips. It’s like being a metabolic detective who’s following—perhaps literally—the bread crumbs.

By the way, if downtime is problem for you (or a client), we have just the remedy: 5 surprising strategies to ditch weekend overeating.

Dilemma #4: “I’m eating as much as I want and still losing weight, so this diet is better than all the others!”

This might be the top reason some people reject CICO.

Say someone switches from a diet of mostly processed foods to one made up of mostly whole, plant-based foods. They might find they can eat as much food as they want, yet the pounds still melt away.

People often believe this is due to the “power of plants.”

Yes, plants are great, but this doesn’t disprove energy balance.

Because plant foods have a very-low energy density, you can eat a lot of them and still be in a calorie deficit. Especially if your previous intake was filled with lots of processed, hyperpalatable “indulgent foods.”

It feels like you’re eating much more food than ever before—and you really might be.

On top of that, you might also feel more satiated because of the volume, fiber, and water content of the plants.

All of which is great. Truly. But it doesn’t negate CICO.

Or take the ketogenic diet, for example.

Here, someone might have a similar experience of “eating as much as they want” and still losing weight, but instead of plant foods, they’re eating meat, cheese, and eggs. Those aren’t low-calorie foods, and they don’t have much fiber, either.

As a result, plenty of low-carb advocates claim keto offers a “metabolic advantage” over other diets.

Here’s what’s most likely happening:

Greater intake of protein increases satiety and reduces appetite

Limited food choices have cut out hundreds of highly-processed calories they might have eaten otherwise (Pasta! Chips! Cookies!)

Reduced food options can also lead to “sensory-specific satiety.” Meaning, when you eat the same foods all the time, they may become less appealing, so you’re not driven to eat as much

Liquid calories—soda, juice, even milk—are generally a no-go, so a greater proportion of calories are consumed from solid foods, which are more filling

Higher blood levels of ketones—which rise when carbs are restricted—seem to suppress appetite

For these reasons, people tend to eat fewer calories and feel less hungry.

Although it might seem magical, the keto diet results in weight loss by regulating “energy in” through a variety of ways.

You might ask: If plant-based and keto diets work so well, why should anyone care if it’s because of CICO, or for some other reason?

Because depending on the person—food preferences, lifestyle, activity level, and so on—many diets, including plant-based and keto, aren’t sustainable long-term. This is particularly true of the more restrictive approaches.

And if you (or your client) believe there’s only one “best diet,” you may become frustrated if you aren’t able to stick to it. You may view yourself as a failure and decide you lack the discipline to lose weight. You may even think you should stop trying.

None of which are true.

Your results aren’t diet dependent. They’re behavior dependent.

Maintaining a healthy body (including a healthy body weight) is about developing consistent, sustainable daily habits that help you positively impact “energy in” and “energy out.”

This might be accomplished while enjoying the foods you love, by:

Eating until you’re 80% full

Eating slowly and mindfully

Eating more minimally processed foods

Getting more high quality sleep

Taking steps to reduce stress and build resilience

It’s about viewing CICO from 30,000 feet and figuring out what approach feels sane—and achievable—for you.

Sure, that might include a plant-based or a keto diet, but it absolutely might not, too. And you know what?

You can get great results either way.  

Dilemma #5: “I want to gain weight, but no matter how much I eat, I can’t seem to.”

The CICO conversation doesn’t always revolve around weight loss. Nor should it.

Some people struggle to gain weight.

Especially younger athletes and people who are very, very active at work. (Think: jobs that involve manual labor.)

It also happens with those who are trying to regain lost weight after an illness.

When someone intentionally eats more food but can’t pack on the pounds, it may seem like CICO is invalidated. (Surprise.)

They often feel like they’re stuffing themselves—“I’m eating everything in sight!”—and it’s just not working. But here’s what our coaches have found:

People tend to remember extremes.

Someone might’ve had six meals in one day, eating as much as they could stand.

But the following day, they only ate two meals because they were still so full. Maybe they were really busy, too, so they didn’t even think much about it.

The first day—the one where they stuffed themselves—would likely stand out a lot more than the day they ate in accordance with their hunger levels. That’s just human nature.

It’s easy to see how CICO is involved here. It’s lack of consistency on the “energy in” part of the equation.

One solution: Instead of stuffing yourself with 3,000 calories one day, and then eating 1,500 the next, aim for a calorie intake just above the middle you can stick with, and increase it in small amounts over time, if needed.

People often increase activity when they increase calories.

When some people suddenly have more available energy—from eating more food—they’re more likely to do things that increase their energy out. Like taking the stairs, pacing while on the phone, and fidgeting in their seats.

They might even push harder during a workout than they would normally.

This can be both subconscious and subtle.

And though it might sound weird, our coaches have identified this as a legitimate problem for “hardgainers.”

Your charge: Take notice of all your activity.

If you can’t curtail some of it, you may have to compensate by eating even more food. Nutrient- and calorie-dense foods like nut butters, whole grains, and oils can help, especially if you’re challenged by your lack of appetite.

3 strategies to game the system.

Once you accept that CICO is both complex and inescapable, you may find yourself up against one very common challenge.

Namely: “I can’t eat any less than I am now!”

This is one of the top reasons people abandon their weight loss efforts or go searching in vain for a miracle diet.

But here are three simple strategies you (or your clients) can use to create a caloric deficit, even if it seems impossible. It’s all about figuring out which one works best for you.

Maximize protein and fiber.

Consuming higher amounts of protein increases satiety, helping you feel more satisfied between meals. And consuming higher amounts of fiber increases satiation, helping you feel more satisfied during meals.

These are both proven in research and practice to help you feel more satisfied overall while eating fewer calories, leading to easier fat loss.

This advice can sound trite, I know. In fact, someday when there are nutrition coach robots, “eat more protein and fiber” will probably be the first thing they’re programmed to say.

But the truth is, most people trying to lose weight still aren’t focused on getting plenty of these two nutrients.

And you know what? It’s not their fault.

When it comes to diets, almost everyone has been told to subtract. Take away the “bad” stuff, and only eat the “good” stuff.

But there’s another approach: Just start by adding.

If you make a concerted effort to increase protein (especially lean protein) and fiber intake (especially from vegetables), you’ll feel more satisfied.

You’ll also be less tempted by all the foods you think you should be avoiding. This helps to automatically “crowd out” ultra-processed foods.

Which leads to another big benefit: By eating more whole foods and fewer of the processed kind, you’re actually retraining your brain to desire those indulgent, ultra-processed foods less.

That’s when a cool thing happens: You start eating fewer calories without actively trying to—rather than purposely restricting because you have to.

That makes weight loss easier.

Starting is simple: For protein, add one palm of relatively lean protein—chicken, fish, tempeh—to one meal. This is beyond what you would have had otherwise. Or have a Super Shake as a meal or snack.

For fiber, add one serving of high-fiber food—in particular vegetables, fruit, lentils and beans—to your regular intake. This might mean having an apple for a snack, including a fistful of roasted carrots at dinner, or tossing in a handful of spinach in your Super Shake.

Try this for two weeks, and then add another palm of lean protein, and one more serving of high-fiber foods.

Besides all the upside we’ve discussed so far, there’s also this:

Coming to the table with a mindset of abundance—rather than scarcity—can help you avoid those anxious, frustrated feelings that often come with being deprived of the foods you love.

So instead of saying, “Ugh, I really don’t think I can give up my nightly wine and chocolate habit,” you might say, “Hey, look at all this delicious, healthy food I can feed my body!”

(And by the way, you don’t actually have to give up your wine and chocolate habit, at least not to initiate progress.)

Shift your perspective.

Imagine you’re on vacation. You slept in and missed breakfast.

Of course, you don’t really mind because you’re relaxed and having a great time. And there’s no reason to panic: Lunch will happen.

But since you’ve removed a meal, you end up eating a few hundred calories less than normal for the day, effectively creating a deficit.

Given you’re in an environment where you feel calm and happy, you hardly even notice.

Now suppose you wake up on a regular day, and you’re actively trying to lose weight. (To get ready for vacation!)

You might think: “I only get to have my 400-calorie breakfast, and it’s not enough food. This is the worst. I’m going to be so hungry all day!”

So you head to work feeling stressed, counting down the minutes to your next snack or meal. Maybe you even start to feel deprived and miserable.

Here’s the thing: You were in a calorie deficit both days, but your subjective experience of each was completely different.

What if you could adjust your thinking to be more like the first scenario rather then the second?

Of course, I’m not suggesting you skip breakfast everyday (unless that’s your preference).

But if you can manage to see eating less as something you happen to be doing— rather than something you have to do—it may end up feeling a lot less terrible.

Add activity rather than subtracting calories.

Are you a person who doesn’t want to eat less, but would happily move more? If so, you might be able to take advantage of something I’ve called G-Flux.

G-Flux, also known as “energy flux,” is the total amount of energy that flows in and out of a system.

As an example, say you want to create a 500-calorie deficit. That could like this:

Energy in: 2,000 calories

Energy out: 2,500 calories

Deficit: 500 calories

But it could also look like this:

Energy in: 3,000 calories

Energy out: 3,500 calories

Deficit: 500 calories

In both scenarios, you’ve achieved a 500-calorie deficit, but the second allows you to eat a lot more food.

That’s one benefit of a greater G-Flux.

But there’s also another: Research suggests if you’re eating food from high-quality sources and doing a variety of workouts—strength training, conditioning, and recovery work—eating more calories can help you carry more lean mass and less fat.

That’s because the increased exercise doesn’t just serve to boost your “energy out.” It also changes nutrient partitioning, sending more calories toward muscle growth and fewer to your fat cells.

Plus, since you’re eating more food, you have more opportunity to get the quantities of vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients you need in order to feel your best.

Win. Win. Win.

To be clear, this is a somewhat advanced method. And because metabolism and energy balance are dynamic in nature, the effectiveness of this method may vary from person to person.

Plus, not everyone has the ability or the desire to spend more time exercising. And that’s okay.

But by being flexible with your thinking—and willing to experiment with different ways of influencing CICO—you can find your own personal strategy for tipping energy balance in your (or your clients’) favor.

If you’re a coach, or you want to be…

Learning how to coach clients, patients, friends, or family members through healthy eating and lifestyle changes—in a way that optimizes energy balance for each unique body, personality, and lifestyle—is both an art and a science.

If you’d like to learn more about both, consider the Precision Nutrition Level 1 Certification. The next group kicks off shortly.

What’s it all about?

The Precision Nutrition Level 1 Certification is the world’s most respected nutrition education program. It gives you the knowledge, systems, and tools you need to really understand how food influences a person’s health and fitness. Plus the ability to turn that knowledge into a thriving coaching practice.

Developed over 15 years, and proven with over 100,000 clients and patients, the Level 1 curriculum stands alone as the authority on the science of nutrition and the art of coaching.

Whether you’re already mid-career, or just starting out, the Level 1 Certification is your springboard to a deeper understanding of nutrition, the authority to coach it, and the ability to turn what you know into results.

[Of course, if you’re already a student or graduate of the Level 1 Certification, check out our Level 2 Certification Master Class. It’s an exclusive, year-long mentorship designed for elite professionals looking to master the art of coaching and be part of the top 1% of health and fitness coaches in the world.]

Interested? Add your name to the presale list. You’ll save up to 33% and secure your spot 24 hours before everyone else.

We’ll be opening up spots in our next Precision Nutrition Level 1 Certification on Wednesday, April 3rd, 2019.

If you want to find out more, we’ve set up the following presale list, which gives you two advantages.

Pay less than everyone else. We like to reward people who are eager to boost their credentials and are ready to commit to getting the education they need. So we’re offering a discount of up to 33% off the general price when you sign up for the presale list.

Sign up 24 hours before the general public and increase your chances of getting a spot. We only open the certification program twice per year. Due to high demand, spots in the program are limited and have historically sold out in a matter of hours. But when you sign up for the presale list, we’ll give you the opportunity to register a full 24 hours before anyone else.

If you’re ready for a deeper understanding of nutrition, the authority to coach it, and the ability to turn what you know into results… this is your chance to see what the world’s top professional nutrition coaching system can do for you.

The post Calories in? Calories out? Hormones? The debate is over. Here’s who won. appeared first on Precision Nutrition.

Calories in? Calories out? Hormones? The debate is over. Here’s who won. published first on