@RWilly Interesting that meat causes you issues. Are you certain it is not tryptophan? And which meats? Red meat seems to be the only thing I can tolerate, because it is virtually the only low tryptophan meat (and protein source for that matter) aside from gelatin. It's true minerals tend to compete with each other, but for the most part the body has a pretty good way of normalizing minerals - except when you megadose (aka supplement in pill form) them.
@tankasnowgod I am not interested in another fruitless argument, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time that you want to discuss reasonably this time. Again calories may be a factor but it's very low. Let me try explaining in different terms. If you eat a horrible diet (high pufa, tryptophan, "junk" foods) your probability of gaining weight and getting metabolic disorders is very high, even at "Reasonable" caloric intakes like let's say 3k range, and especially as you start pushing 4k. If you eat a perfect diet, your probability of gaining weight is basically nil, even if you don't count calories and eat upwards of 4k+. Watching pufa, tryptophan, processed foods, all that, lets you eat more and not only be healthier, but more energetic because you can eat more calories (energy) and not get fat, and because your threshold of getting fat as a function of calories is so large, that it is very very hard (or even impossible short of force feeding) to get overtweight, and thus, the calories are no longer important, because if you can eat to satiety and also feel good, with zero deprivation, that's the ideal place to be. The man Ray Peat says this too - Both pufa and starch, he says tend to be more fattenning relative to SFA and sugar, respectively, for example, on a per calorie basis. Therefore, "a calorie is not a calorie" in this sense. I don't understand why you seem so interested in calories, when I know you have read the same ray peat articles I have. You can just eat whatever you want and slash calories and have to count the rest of your life and also deprive yourself, or eat the right foods and not have to deprive yourself at all. So why do we see so many people eating ad libitum and getting fat on these forums? Because people are eating fattening foods like PUFA, dairy, too much tryptophan, not enough carbs, sneaking in junk foods, etc. Sure, in the strictest sense, "they ate too many calories" but more accurately "they ate too many incorrect foods". It's better to put it in terms of "eating poor foods in excess" rather than "eating food in excess". Can you get fat with the "perfect" diet? Possibly, but it'd likely involve eating supra-physical amounts of food and feeding yourself to the point of discomfort, which no normal person would do. So, with that
we should be telling people not to cut calories, but to cut anti-metabolic foods from their diets. This is just as effective (if not more so) than keeping a sub-optimal diet but cutting calories.
So I say again - The threshold at which a certain caloric intake makes you fat is EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY volatile. You could gain weight on high pufa high tryptophan on 2000 calories, and lose weight on low pufa low tryptophan no junk food diet on 4000 calories. Sure that doesn't violate "CICO" in the strictest sense, but how useful is tracking calories if its that volatile? This is the point I'm trying to make. One person would say oh I need to cut calories on <2000, another will say my maintenance calories is 4000. Which is correct? Both. And neither. Therefore it's (almost) a useless metric. Certainly, it shouldn't be the #1 metric we care about. It's no longer the #1 metric I care about for this reason. "Just Cut calories" is the most horrible advice ever. Maybe once you have a perfect diet, but I am convinced that once diet is cleaned up, the weight takes care of itself without getting OCD on calorie counting. People that champion If It Fits your Macros (IIFYM) don't care about food intake at all, many of them even promote eating junk foods, since IIFYM, doesn't matter right? Just track calories. Nah. I used to do that years ago, done doing that. I care about what foods I put in my stomach now. And which ones provide me the MOST benefit.
ALL THAT SAID. There is a plot you can generate that could be semi-interesting, I suppose. And that is - Caloric threshold to get fat
as a function of specific diet plan followed. And this would show that the worst diet imaginable would make you fat let's say at 1000-2000 calories and the best wouldn't crossover till maybe let's say 4000-5000 (or even more, just making up numbers). Clearly, it's 100x easier to get fat if it only takes 1000 calories as compared to 5000 though.
The thing is that I now believe
hormones are the #1 driver for weight gain or loss above EVERYTHING ELSE - yes even the factors I am mentioning like SFA/PUFA, tryptophan, and calories also. In fact, it was this realization that led me to Ray Peat. It's virtually impossible to get fat if your androgens are high and estrogens are low. Diet manipulation is just one way to manipulate the hormones in your favor. Lyle mcdonald briefly touches on hormones in his CICO article, true, but he doesn't give it the respect it deserves when it's literally THE factor in weight gain or loss.
Measuring "metabolic rate" and "CICO" is only good for telling you at what point you gain or lose weight with your current specific diet. And tells you nothing about how to make your diet better so you can maximize the metabolic rate. Joe smoe can use his cute little fitbit and find he gains weight on 3200 calories. But all that tells him is he gains on 3200 calories
with his current diet, lifestyle, and environment and usually all 3 are in our power to improve in our favor, or at least 1-2 of the three.