Fun debate about CICO
Options
Replies
-
VintageFeline wrote: »So to clarify on original point, CICO always applies and where those calories come from is irrelevant unless you have a pre-existing medical conditional, like insulin resistance or a thyroid problem. All that aside, in a normal person with no discernible medical problems, a calorie is a calorie, whether it comes from fat, salt, carbs, protein, whatever.
Not really. There are no calories in salt and 100 calories of protein has a different effect on the body to 100 calories of carbohydrate or fat. Hence all the studies looking at the benefit of higher protein diets for weight loss, etc.
Are obesity or overweight included as "pre-existing medical conditions" ? Genetics and other factors influence how individuals respond to macronutrients and for that matter calories in (which are just grams of macronutrients multiplied by constants). See twin studies.
So you can do an energy balance after feeding someone and observing what happens, but you're controlling only some of the variables and the energy balance is a consequence not a driver. If you were considering a tank of hot water with a heater and a cooling coil then the energy balance would be primary, but I don't see that as this case in living organisms.
0 -
I understand the difference. Also, I'm not the one trying to argue that the law of thermodynamics applies, but kinda doesn't. That's you.lindsey1979 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
It's virtually impossible to calculate where a leaf falling to the ground is going to land. That doesn't mean the leaf is violating the laws of physics.lindsey1979 wrote: »You also have the issue that the CO part is virtually impossible to calculate with any accuracy independently -- most calculate it based on a lot of assumptions (such as common BMR numbers) or in reverse based on their weight loss result (which once again with the fat/muscle issue is only an estimate at best). So when people talk about the law being indisputable, it is true but also not completely accurate as applied to the extremely complex system of the human body.
Even talking complexity into account, you're arguing edge cases in which the absolute numbers might not always line up, but they don't always line up in any approach.
I never said it violated or invalidated a law of thermodynamics. Just that there are inherent limitations when you apply those laws to a complex biological system for the practical purposes of weight loss. The fact that some can't seem to understand those differences is troubling.
Because people like you like to talk about "edge cases", that's why I cite IR as an example as it affects over 40% of US adults -- those are not "edge cases". And IR is just one of many examples. When you add them all up -- IR, thyroid, vitamin D deficiencies, other autoimmune issues, adrenal insufficiency, etc. -- it's probably more than half of the population.
What on your list changes CICO? Oh, nothing, right? At most, it makes it more difficult for people to find the right answer, it doesn't mean that there isn't a right answer. The answer is burn more calories than you consume.
Do you disagree that, whatever confusing factors may be at play in a complex biological organism, CICO still holds? And if CICO holds, whatever else is going on, ultimately it is a question of balancing what's happening on the plate with what's happening on the scale, right?
We may not be able to tell in real time exactly how much we're burning, or even exactly how much we're eating. We may not be able to tell in real time what genetic, congenital, acquired, or other abnormality, if any, is pushing us away from the average. However, if we track food relatively precisely -- not even accurately -- and watch the scale, over time we will be able to determine whether our CO is higher than our CI or not, right? If so, we're good to go, regardless of the lack of metaphysical certainty about any particular aspect of the process. If not, exactly why can't we make that determination, in your view?
0 -
TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »@lindsey1979 'And then you have things like pesky hormones and how they can effect the equation -- which a lot of people don't want to admit exist because it can get soooo complicated at this point. Whether you're talking insulin, thyroid, HGH, grehlin, leptin, etc. -- it goes on and on and we really are only starting to scratch the surface of how this all works.'
Who is the we and starting to scratch the surface of what?
We as modern society are only starting to understand the various hormones and interactions involved with metabolism and weight issues. The research is in its infancy. Definitely good starts into leptin, grehlin, thyroid hormones, etc. but still a long way to go.TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »CICO is a great guideline but it has its limitations when applied to the human body -- because unlike the physics law in a closed system, the human body has a lot more variables -- we literally have 1000s of chemical reactions in our metabolic pathways, and the coefficients and efficiency of those reactions can vary greatly, especially as influenced by various hormones. Plus, you have the issue that a lb of fat releases 3500 cals, but a lb of muscle releases a lot less (something like 900-1700). So depending on your fat to muscle ratio in your weight loss will greatly change your numbers on the scale -- if you're losing more muscle, the numbers will go down quicker. If you're losing more fat, the numbers will go down slower.
You also have the issue that the CO part is virtually impossible to calculate with any accuracy independently -- most calculate it based on a lot of assumptions (such as common BMR numbers) or in reverse based on their weight loss result (which once again with the fat/muscle issue is only an estimate at best). So when people talk about the law being indisputable, it is true but also not completely accurate as applied to the extremely complex system of the human body.
And then you have things like pesky hormones and how they can effect the equation -- which a lot of people don't want to admit exist because it can get soooo complicated at this point. Whether you're talking insulin, thyroid, HGH, grehlin, leptin, etc. -- it goes on and on and we really are only starting to scratch the surface of how this all works.
An easy hormone example is someone that has insulin resistance. There was a study in 2012 or so that showed that women with good insulin sensitivity lost nearly twice as much weight as their counterparts on a higher carb diet isocaloric deficit diet (protein was the same and caloric deficit was the same). But their insulin resistance counterparts had the exact opposite happen -- they lost nearly twice as much weight on the lower carb diet. Same amounts of protein, same deficit and drastically different results based on carb/fat ratio depending on the individual woman's insulin sensitivity/resistance. So, that's a powerful example of how all calories are not all equal and would produce drastically different results in different women for the same amount of total calories.
And before anyone gets all up in arms about how insulin resistance is rare -- it's not. Per the CDC, over 40% of US adults have insulin resistance at diabetic or prediabetic levels -- the vast majority of which don't know it. I think actual numbers from their 2014 report (which had data from 2010-2012 I think) was something like 9.3% had diabetes and 37% had insulin resistance at prediabetic levels -- that's over 46%, or almost half of the population of US adults! That's a LOT of people.
So, CICO is a great guideline and definitely a place to start when you're looking to lose weight. But, if you find yourself not seeing results after following it (and you're truly accurately weighing/measuring your food), then you need to start to look at issues outside of CICO such as insulin resistance, thyroid, etc. Because you might be in that half of the population that has an issue that shifts the equation from its commonly understood applications.
Oh, you're back. Insulin resistance is still your favourite topic I see.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Meal-to-meal and day-to-day don't matter for CO any more than they matter for weight. Look at the trends.TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »A bit more reading suggests that activity may be responsible at least in part, Cornier cites Levine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9880251 as finding large variations in NEAT responsible for variations in fat gain during overfeeding :
In other words the maths only works if you measure everything rigorously and correctly and don't assume CO is a constant.
With all that said, the confusion is, CICO is still valid.
Yes, but I think the point is that CO is hard to establish because it varies so much between people, and even day to day, or meal to meal. Some foods (CI) will change what an individual's CO is for a time, and some foods (CI) make it easier or harder to eat at a caloric deficit.
Just my interpretation.
How do some foods make it harder or easier to eat at a deficit? Are you talking about caloric density and satiety or something else?
I was referring to satiety and factors like hormones (ex. insulin, cortisol, and IGF-1). Those hormones will have an effect, albeit not a huge one, on CO.
And it's not only CO but how yourbody is able to access energy.
For example, if you're storing more cals as fat (like with insulin resistance), you'll feel more fatigued. To battle the fatigue, you eat more and end up overeating. So even though you need the energy, your body isn't accessing it effectively and you either end up with people that are very fatigued or overeating. That's one of the reasons why it can be so difficult to lose/maintain with IR, especially if you have a lot of carbs in your diet. Similar issues can be seen with thyroid issues, but totally different mechanism.
The ability to metabolize foods effectively for energy is one of the variables I referenced earlier. I choose IR as an example in particular because (1) it's a metabolic condition and (2) it's incredibly widespread (at least in U.S. adults).
Once again, all factors that go into the CO part of the equation. Just because it can be difficult to figure out does not make it invalid.lindsey1979 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
It's virtually impossible to calculate where a leaf falling to the ground is going to land. That doesn't mean the leaf is violating the laws of physics.lindsey1979 wrote: »You also have the issue that the CO part is virtually impossible to calculate with any accuracy independently -- most calculate it based on a lot of assumptions (such as common BMR numbers) or in reverse based on their weight loss result (which once again with the fat/muscle issue is only an estimate at best). So when people talk about the law being indisputable, it is true but also not completely accurate as applied to the extremely complex system of the human body.
Even talking complexity into account, you're arguing edge cases in which the absolute numbers might not always line up, but they don't always line up in any approach.
I never said it violated or invalidated a law of thermodynamics. Just that there are inherent limitations when you apply those laws to a complex biological system for the practical purposes of weight loss. The fact that some can't seem to understand those differences is troubling.
Because people like you like to talk about "edge cases", that's why I cite IR as an example as it affects over 40% of US adults -- those are not "edge cases". And IR is just one of many examples. When you add them all up -- IR, thyroid, vitamin D deficiencies, other autoimmune issues, adrenal insufficiency, etc. -- it's probably more than half of the population.
Where exactly are people having trouble seeing the differences? Everyone agrees that metabolic disorders through another variable in the equation, you also agree to that. Everyone has been saying that regardless CICO still applies, you agreed to that as well. Where's the problem? Why the need to keep emphasizing metabolic disorders? What exactly are you looking for people acknowledge.
There seem to be two things that go on here. (1) theoretical discussions about the validity of CICO and (2) how CICO applies to weight loss. Folks like yourself tend to get stuck on the ivory tower principle of CICO -- I personally don't think anyone cares about on a weightliss website.
Confusion comes I when you try to equate the two as synonymous. When you're talking practical application to human body for weight loss/maintenance, there are other factors to consider -- some of which may be considerable depending on the individual circumstances. But many seem overwhelmed by that and want everything to be simple -- so they go back to oversimplified application of CICO which can lead to erroneous results.
Then these debates arise about the validity or not of CICO. And it's not really about that AT ALL. Just that there are limitations to simplifying CICO in that context and why people should look at the oversimplification as an absolute.
Nothing that you have said is providing a valid argument against CICO being applicable to everyone. You now say that people want things to be simple and end up with erroneous results but that doesn't discredit CICO, instead it reinforces what many people say all the time, CICO works but many people just don't know what they are doing.
Im not trying to discredit CICO -- why do keep trying counter arguments that aren't actually made?
It's just that CICO as a simple weightloss tool has its limitations because of its many variables in biological systems. When those variables change, the simplicity of the application differs dramatically. That's all.
So if you're not falling into the parameters of the simple application, you should probably look at some of those variables to explain the results (and tweak accordingly to get better results). This really isn't that hard.
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »@lindsey1979 'And then you have things like pesky hormones and how they can effect the equation -- which a lot of people don't want to admit exist because it can get soooo complicated at this point. Whether you're talking insulin, thyroid, HGH, grehlin, leptin, etc. -- it goes on and on and we really are only starting to scratch the surface of how this all works.'
Who is the we and starting to scratch the surface of what?
We as modern society are only starting to understand the various hormones and interactions involved with metabolism and weight issues. The research is in its infancy. Definitely good starts into leptin, grehlin, thyroid hormones, etc. but still a long way to go.TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »CICO is a great guideline but it has its limitations when applied to the human body -- because unlike the physics law in a closed system, the human body has a lot more variables -- we literally have 1000s of chemical reactions in our metabolic pathways, and the coefficients and efficiency of those reactions can vary greatly, especially as influenced by various hormones. Plus, you have the issue that a lb of fat releases 3500 cals, but a lb of muscle releases a lot less (something like 900-1700). So depending on your fat to muscle ratio in your weight loss will greatly change your numbers on the scale -- if you're losing more muscle, the numbers will go down quicker. If you're losing more fat, the numbers will go down slower.
You also have the issue that the CO part is virtually impossible to calculate with any accuracy independently -- most calculate it based on a lot of assumptions (such as common BMR numbers) or in reverse based on their weight loss result (which once again with the fat/muscle issue is only an estimate at best). So when people talk about the law being indisputable, it is true but also not completely accurate as applied to the extremely complex system of the human body.
And then you have things like pesky hormones and how they can effect the equation -- which a lot of people don't want to admit exist because it can get soooo complicated at this point. Whether you're talking insulin, thyroid, HGH, grehlin, leptin, etc. -- it goes on and on and we really are only starting to scratch the surface of how this all works.
An easy hormone example is someone that has insulin resistance. There was a study in 2012 or so that showed that women with good insulin sensitivity lost nearly twice as much weight as their counterparts on a higher carb diet isocaloric deficit diet (protein was the same and caloric deficit was the same). But their insulin resistance counterparts had the exact opposite happen -- they lost nearly twice as much weight on the lower carb diet. Same amounts of protein, same deficit and drastically different results based on carb/fat ratio depending on the individual woman's insulin sensitivity/resistance. So, that's a powerful example of how all calories are not all equal and would produce drastically different results in different women for the same amount of total calories.
And before anyone gets all up in arms about how insulin resistance is rare -- it's not. Per the CDC, over 40% of US adults have insulin resistance at diabetic or prediabetic levels -- the vast majority of which don't know it. I think actual numbers from their 2014 report (which had data from 2010-2012 I think) was something like 9.3% had diabetes and 37% had insulin resistance at prediabetic levels -- that's over 46%, or almost half of the population of US adults! That's a LOT of people.
So, CICO is a great guideline and definitely a place to start when you're looking to lose weight. But, if you find yourself not seeing results after following it (and you're truly accurately weighing/measuring your food), then you need to start to look at issues outside of CICO such as insulin resistance, thyroid, etc. Because you might be in that half of the population that has an issue that shifts the equation from its commonly understood applications.
Oh, you're back. Insulin resistance is still your favourite topic I see.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Meal-to-meal and day-to-day don't matter for CO any more than they matter for weight. Look at the trends.TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »A bit more reading suggests that activity may be responsible at least in part, Cornier cites Levine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9880251 as finding large variations in NEAT responsible for variations in fat gain during overfeeding :
In other words the maths only works if you measure everything rigorously and correctly and don't assume CO is a constant.
With all that said, the confusion is, CICO is still valid.
Yes, but I think the point is that CO is hard to establish because it varies so much between people, and even day to day, or meal to meal. Some foods (CI) will change what an individual's CO is for a time, and some foods (CI) make it easier or harder to eat at a caloric deficit.
Just my interpretation.
How do some foods make it harder or easier to eat at a deficit? Are you talking about caloric density and satiety or something else?
I was referring to satiety and factors like hormones (ex. insulin, cortisol, and IGF-1). Those hormones will have an effect, albeit not a huge one, on CO.
And it's not only CO but how yourbody is able to access energy.
For example, if you're storing more cals as fat (like with insulin resistance), you'll feel more fatigued. To battle the fatigue, you eat more and end up overeating. So even though you need the energy, your body isn't accessing it effectively and you either end up with people that are very fatigued or overeating. That's one of the reasons why it can be so difficult to lose/maintain with IR, especially if you have a lot of carbs in your diet. Similar issues can be seen with thyroid issues, but totally different mechanism.
The ability to metabolize foods effectively for energy is one of the variables I referenced earlier. I choose IR as an example in particular because (1) it's a metabolic condition and (2) it's incredibly widespread (at least in U.S. adults).
Once again, all factors that go into the CO part of the equation. Just because it can be difficult to figure out does not make it invalid.lindsey1979 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
It's virtually impossible to calculate where a leaf falling to the ground is going to land. That doesn't mean the leaf is violating the laws of physics.lindsey1979 wrote: »You also have the issue that the CO part is virtually impossible to calculate with any accuracy independently -- most calculate it based on a lot of assumptions (such as common BMR numbers) or in reverse based on their weight loss result (which once again with the fat/muscle issue is only an estimate at best). So when people talk about the law being indisputable, it is true but also not completely accurate as applied to the extremely complex system of the human body.
Even talking complexity into account, you're arguing edge cases in which the absolute numbers might not always line up, but they don't always line up in any approach.
I never said it violated or invalidated a law of thermodynamics. Just that there are inherent limitations when you apply those laws to a complex biological system for the practical purposes of weight loss. The fact that some can't seem to understand those differences is troubling.
Because people like you like to talk about "edge cases", that's why I cite IR as an example as it affects over 40% of US adults -- those are not "edge cases". And IR is just one of many examples. When you add them all up -- IR, thyroid, vitamin D deficiencies, other autoimmune issues, adrenal insufficiency, etc. -- it's probably more than half of the population.
Where exactly are people having trouble seeing the differences? Everyone agrees that metabolic disorders through another variable in the equation, you also agree to that. Everyone has been saying that regardless CICO still applies, you agreed to that as well. Where's the problem? Why the need to keep emphasizing metabolic disorders? What exactly are you looking for people acknowledge.
There seem to be two things that go on here. (1) theoretical discussions about the validity of CICO and (2) how CICO applies to weight loss. Folks like yourself tend to get stuck on the ivory tower principle of CICO -- I personally don't think anyone cares about on a weightliss website.
Confusion comes I when you try to equate the two as synonymous. When you're talking practical application to human body for weight loss/maintenance, there are other factors to consider -- some of which may be considerable depending on the individual circumstances. But many seem overwhelmed by that and want everything to be simple -- so they go back to oversimplified application of CICO which can lead to erroneous results.
Then these debates arise about the validity or not of CICO. And it's not really about that AT ALL. Just that there are limitations to simplifying CICO in that context and why people should look at the oversimplification as an absolute.
Nothing that you have said is providing a valid argument against CICO being applicable to everyone. You now say that people want things to be simple and end up with erroneous results but that doesn't discredit CICO, instead it reinforces what many people say all the time, CICO works but many people just don't know what they are doing.
Im not trying to discredit CICO -- why do keep trying counter arguments that aren't actually made?
It's just that CICO as a simple weightloss tool has its limitations because of its many variables in biological systems. When those variables change, the simplicity of the application differs dramatically. That's all.
So if you're not falling into the parameters of the simple application, you should probably look at some of those variables to explain the results (and tweak accordingly to get better results). This really isn't that hard.
Lindsey, no matter what variables come into play, weight loss still comes down down eating less calories than you burn. It's just a matter of finding out what calorie balance works for you.0 -
That's inaPeachyCarol wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »CICO is a great guideline but it has its limitations when applied to the human body -- because unlike the physics law in a closed system, the human body has a lot more variables -- we literally have 1000s of chemical reactions in our metabolic pathways, and the coefficients and efficiency of those reactions can vary greatly, especially as influenced by various hormones. Plus, you have the issue that a lb of fat releases 3500 cals, but a lb of muscle releases a lot less (something like 900-1700). So depending on your fat to muscle ratio in your weight loss will greatly change your numbers on the scale -- if you're losing more muscle, the numbers will go down quicker. If you're losing more fat, the numbers will go down slower.
You also have the issue that the CO part is virtually impossible to calculate with any accuracy independently -- most calculate it based on a lot of assumptions (such as common BMR numbers) or in reverse based on their weight loss result (which once again with the fat/muscle issue is only an estimate at best). So when people talk about the law being indisputable, it is true but also not completely accurate as applied to the extremely complex system of the human body.
And then you have things like pesky hormones and how they can effect the equation -- which a lot of people don't want to admit exist because it can get soooo complicated at this point. Whether you're talking insulin, thyroid, HGH, grehlin, leptin, etc. -- it goes on and on and we really are only starting to scratch the surface of how this all works.
An easy hormone example is someone that has insulin resistance. There was a study in 2012 or so that showed that women with good insulin sensitivity lost nearly twice as much weight as their counterparts on a higher carb diet isocaloric deficit diet (protein was the same and caloric deficit was the same). But their insulin resistance counterparts had the exact opposite happen -- they lost nearly twice as much weight on the lower carb diet. Same amounts of protein, same deficit and drastically different results based on carb/fat ratio depending on the individual woman's insulin sensitivity/resistance. So, that's a powerful example of how all calories are not all equal and would produce drastically different results in different women for the same amount of total calories.
And before anyone gets all up in arms about how insulin resistance is rare -- it's not. Per the CDC, over 40% of US adults have insulin resistance at diabetic or prediabetic levels -- the vast majority of which don't know it. I think actual numbers from their 2014 report (which had data from 2010-2012 I think) was something like 9.3% had diabetes and 37% had insulin resistance at prediabetic levels -- that's over 46%, or almost half of the population of US adults! That's a LOT of people.
So, CICO is a great guideline and definitely a place to start when you're looking to lose weight. But, if you find yourself not seeing results after following it (and you're truly accurately weighing/measuring your food), then you need to start to look at issues outside of CICO such as insulin resistance, thyroid, etc. Because you might be in that half of the population that has an issue that shifts the equation from its commonly understood applications.
Oh, you're back. Insulin resistance is still your favourite topic I see.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Meal-to-meal and day-to-day don't matter for CO any more than they matter for weight. Look at the trends.TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »A bit more reading suggests that activity may be responsible at least in part, Cornier cites Levine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9880251 as finding large variations in NEAT responsible for variations in fat gain during overfeeding :
In other words the maths only works if you measure everything rigorously and correctly and don't assume CO is a constant.
With all that said, the confusion is, CICO is still valid.
Yes, but I think the point is that CO is hard to establish because it varies so much between people, and even day to day, or meal to meal. Some foods (CI) will change what an individual's CO is for a time, and some foods (CI) make it easier or harder to eat at a caloric deficit.
Just my interpretation.
How do some foods make it harder or easier to eat at a deficit? Are you talking about caloric density and satiety or something else?
I was referring to satiety and factors like hormones (ex. insulin, cortisol, and IGF-1). Those hormones will have an effect, albeit not a huge one, on CO.
And it's not only CO but how yourbody is able to access energy.
For example, if you're storing more cals as fat (like with insulin resistance), you'll feel more fatigued. To battle the fatigue, you eat more and end up overeating. So even though you need the energy, your body isn't accessing it effectively and you either end up with people that are very fatigued or overeating. That's one of the reasons why it can be so difficult to lose/maintain with IR, especially if you have a lot of carbs in your diet. Similar issues can be seen with thyroid issues, but totally different mechanism.
The ability to metabolize foods effectively for energy is one of the variables I referenced earlier. I choose IR as an example in particular because (1) it's a metabolic condition and (2) it's incredibly widespread (at least in U.S. adults).
IR will not make you store "more" calories as fat, all things being the same unless you're eating more to begin with.
Inaccurate. If you understood how IR works, you'd understand why it lends itself to overeating. In broad strokes:
You have nutrients in your blood stream from eating, but your cells are resistant to insulin. So instead of the nutrients going into your cells like it would in an insulin sensitive person, they stay in the blood stream. Your body pumps more insulin to compensate to force the cells to take up the nutrients but that causes too swift of a change, dropping blood sugar, your signals for hunger get erroneously triggered (fatigue, light headed was, strong cravings), and you eat more because your hunger cues are triggered. Now you have more nutrients than necessary for the energy requirements and end up storing the surplus as fat. This can also contribute to imbalance in other pathways -- like cortisol in your adrenals. That's why IR folks have these big swings and can also end up with a level of adrenal insufficiency. And it's also why it can be very difficult to lose/maintain with IR -- because you either end up abnormally fatigued/hungry or you overeat to compensate for the fatigue/strong hunger cues.
There are things that can help with IR such as switching up macros (managing carbs is often helpful as that's what triggers the insulin response most strongly), medication like metformin, etc. Losing weight also helps for many -- but that's a nice little catch -22.0 -
I think the biggest problem with CICO is that it treats all calories the same metabolically (or at least doesn't have a simple way to account for how that may greatly change on an individual basis). Look at the studies cited earlier where protein was the same but there were different percentages of fats and carbs. Cals (or caloric deficits) were the same and yet there were drastically different results based on the macros and a woman's insulin sensitivity/resistance. Do you want to work harder or smarter?
That study showed that our understanding of CICO is either wrong or incomplete. Because they could not explain the results in terms of differences in CO (RMR, NEAT, etc.) -- so either something else is going on there that we don't know about yet or our ability to effectively measure CO is painfully limited.
If I can lose twice as much weight by simply adjusting fat/carb ratio that seems to be a really important fact to know.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »I think the biggest problem with CICO is that it treats all calories the same metabolically (or at least doesn't have a simple way to account for how that may greatly change on an individual basis). Look at the studies cited earlier where protein was the same but there were different percentages of fats and carbs. Cals (or caloric deficits) were the same and yet there were drastically different results based on the macros and a woman's insulin sensitivity/resistance. Do you want to work harder or smarter?
That study showed that our understanding of CICO is either wrong or incomplete. Because they could not explain the results in terms of differences in CO (RMR, NEAT, etc.) -- so either something else is going on there that we don't know about yet or our ability to effectively measure CO is painfully limited.
If I can lose twice as much weight by simply adjusting fat/carb ratio that seems to be a really important fact to know.
What study, please? Do you have a link?
The only way you can lose weight by "simply adjusting fat/carb ratio" is if that "adjustment" puts you in a calorie deficit.
0 -
First off I want to say people reading this thread should go back and read what @ninerbuff and @vismal already said. Quite honestly you could do a lot worse than to spend your day just finding and reading their posts ... sense amongst the nonsense @ MFP.
But aside from agreeing with what's already been said your paragraph quoted here:VintageFeline wrote: »I guess the discussion, where I kept saying "but science" is that he firmly believes a calorie is not a calorie. I know 3500 isn't an absolute but it's a near enough measure for most people right? His argument is if your diet is crappy then you will lose less weight eating the same calories as someone with a healthier diet. Same everything but calories.
triggered me to have to write another reply. You see, you're absolutely right: a calorie is a calorie. A certain deficit will burn mass to make up that deficit. It's as simple as that.
However, I can make him right too: a pound is not a pound. When you maintain your deficit, and lose your 5 pounds a month, you might not lose the same 5 pounds as someone with a good diet and fitness regimen. Do I think this matters? No, I don't.
But the fact is that if you lose 0.7lbs of fat and 0.3lbs of lean mass, eating crap and not exercising (this is more or less what I do for weight loss, personally), that's not "as good" as eating a solid diet with sufficient protein and exercising to maintain your muscle mass and lose 0.8 or 0.9lbs of fat to 0.1lb of lean. If you do exercise but eat crap, then the crap might not enable your muscles to recover.
Additionally, since 1lb of lean takes up less space than 1lb of fat, losing more fat means way more inches. This article sums it up nicely:
So, at the end of the day, it's better to be fit and slim than just slim. But if, like me, your goal is to lose a lot of weight (I have > 70lbs to go), it's fastest and easiest to focus on CICO and layer on the fitness later.
Many people who have successfully lost mainly lament that they didn't add exercise sooner. If I was good enough at this to make both changes at once, I would. Meanwhile I'm with you - a calorie is a calorie, even if burning lean mass makes much less difference to body shape than burning fat mass.
Osric
P.S. One other small problem is that one gram of fat contains 9 calories; while 1 gram of protein contains only 4 calories. So if you pretend muscle is pure protein, then you have to burn twice the volume of muscle to get the same caloric output; you have to double the size of the muscle lost in order to get the same caloric output as you'd get by burning fat, so the body shape difference isn't as dramatic as the picture implies. Still pretty big though.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
It's virtually impossible to calculate where a leaf falling to the ground is going to land. That doesn't mean the leaf is violating the laws of physics.lindsey1979 wrote: »You also have the issue that the CO part is virtually impossible to calculate with any accuracy independently -- most calculate it based on a lot of assumptions (such as common BMR numbers) or in reverse based on their weight loss result (which once again with the fat/muscle issue is only an estimate at best). So when people talk about the law being indisputable, it is true but also not completely accurate as applied to the extremely complex system of the human body.
Even talking complexity into account, you're arguing edge cases in which the absolute numbers might not always line up, but they don't always line up in any approach.
I could make an argument the leaf is actually even worse in terms of predicting mathematically. I believe the leaf's landing spot would be a chaos function, and the only way to calculate it is to run through the set of raw calculations with any failure to have the right value of any variable leading to a very different result. The only way to have a correct prediction is to force the leaf to follow what you want - force it to the ground with outside pushes.
The human body on the other hand, operates on allostatic principles: it will actively push the system towards balancing points and parameters it wants. This makes it more predictable. In fact, allostatic principles are why we get things like insulin resistance - the body is actively trying to correct for what it thinks is faulty signaling by the pancreas with the insulin level it is sending.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »I think the biggest problem with CICO is that it treats all calories the same metabolically (or at least doesn't have a simple way to account for how that may greatly change on an individual basis). Look at the studies cited earlier where protein was the same but there were different percentages of fats and carbs. Cals (or caloric deficits) were the same and yet there were drastically different results based on the macros and a woman's insulin sensitivity/resistance. Do you want to work harder or smarter?
That study showed that our understanding of CICO is either wrong or incomplete. Because they could not explain the results in terms of differences in CO (RMR, NEAT, etc.) -- so either something else is going on there that we don't know about yet or our ability to effectively measure CO is painfully limited.
If I can lose twice as much weight by simply adjusting fat/carb ratio that seems to be a really important fact to know.
This is more about expecting greater specificity with the CICO principle than is possible for an individual. It is neither wrong, nor incomplete, but a generalization based upon population statistics. The closer an individual lies to the median results, the greater the accuracy.
Specific adjustments such as these you are stating require intimate knowledge of far too many variables to apply to a large population.
0 -
I'm not sure you actually understand insulin resistance. Insulin resistance generally happens because you've _stored_ more calories as fat, not are storing more calories as fat. Insulin signals fat cells to take up glucose and blood lipids to make triglycerides for long term fat storage. If you're insulin resistant, your fat cells stop reacting to insulin as much and let sugar and blood lipids float more. This actually would tend to leave more energy available in circulation for activity, not less.lindsey1979 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »CICO is a great guideline but it has its limitations when applied to the human body -- because unlike the physics law in a closed system, the human body has a lot more variables -- we literally have 1000s of chemical reactions in our metabolic pathways, and the coefficients and efficiency of those reactions can vary greatly, especially as influenced by various hormones. Plus, you have the issue that a lb of fat releases 3500 cals, but a lb of muscle releases a lot less (something like 900-1700). So depending on your fat to muscle ratio in your weight loss will greatly change your numbers on the scale -- if you're losing more muscle, the numbers will go down quicker. If you're losing more fat, the numbers will go down slower.
You also have the issue that the CO part is virtually impossible to calculate with any accuracy independently -- most calculate it based on a lot of assumptions (such as common BMR numbers) or in reverse based on their weight loss result (which once again with the fat/muscle issue is only an estimate at best). So when people talk about the law being indisputable, it is true but also not completely accurate as applied to the extremely complex system of the human body.
And then you have things like pesky hormones and how they can effect the equation -- which a lot of people don't want to admit exist because it can get soooo complicated at this point. Whether you're talking insulin, thyroid, HGH, grehlin, leptin, etc. -- it goes on and on and we really are only starting to scratch the surface of how this all works.
An easy hormone example is someone that has insulin resistance. There was a study in 2012 or so that showed that women with good insulin sensitivity lost nearly twice as much weight as their counterparts on a higher carb diet isocaloric deficit diet (protein was the same and caloric deficit was the same). But their insulin resistance counterparts had the exact opposite happen -- they lost nearly twice as much weight on the lower carb diet. Same amounts of protein, same deficit and drastically different results based on carb/fat ratio depending on the individual woman's insulin sensitivity/resistance. So, that's a powerful example of how all calories are not all equal and would produce drastically different results in different women for the same amount of total calories.
And before anyone gets all up in arms about how insulin resistance is rare -- it's not. Per the CDC, over 40% of US adults have insulin resistance at diabetic or prediabetic levels -- the vast majority of which don't know it. I think actual numbers from their 2014 report (which had data from 2010-2012 I think) was something like 9.3% had diabetes and 37% had insulin resistance at prediabetic levels -- that's over 46%, or almost half of the population of US adults! That's a LOT of people.
So, CICO is a great guideline and definitely a place to start when you're looking to lose weight. But, if you find yourself not seeing results after following it (and you're truly accurately weighing/measuring your food), then you need to start to look at issues outside of CICO such as insulin resistance, thyroid, etc. Because you might be in that half of the population that has an issue that shifts the equation from its commonly understood applications.
Oh, you're back. Insulin resistance is still your favourite topic I see.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Meal-to-meal and day-to-day don't matter for CO any more than they matter for weight. Look at the trends.TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »A bit more reading suggests that activity may be responsible at least in part, Cornier cites Levine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9880251 as finding large variations in NEAT responsible for variations in fat gain during overfeeding :
In other words the maths only works if you measure everything rigorously and correctly and don't assume CO is a constant.
With all that said, the confusion is, CICO is still valid.
Yes, but I think the point is that CO is hard to establish because it varies so much between people, and even day to day, or meal to meal. Some foods (CI) will change what an individual's CO is for a time, and some foods (CI) make it easier or harder to eat at a caloric deficit.
Just my interpretation.
How do some foods make it harder or easier to eat at a deficit? Are you talking about caloric density and satiety or something else?
I was referring to satiety and factors like hormones (ex. insulin, cortisol, and IGF-1). Those hormones will have an effect, albeit not a huge one, on CO.
And it's not only CO but how yourbody is able to access energy.
For example, if you're storing more cals as fat (like with insulin resistance), you'll feel more fatigued. To battle the fatigue, you eat more and end up overeating. So even though you need the energy, your body isn't accessing it effectively and you either end up with people that are very fatigued or overeating. That's one of the reasons why it can be so difficult to lose/maintain with IR, especially if you have a lot of carbs in your diet. Similar issues can be seen with thyroid issues, but totally different mechanism.
The ability to metabolize foods effectively for energy is one of the variables I referenced earlier. I choose IR as an example in particular because (1) it's a metabolic condition and (2) it's incredibly widespread (at least in U.S. adults).
And even if it IR is present in 40% of the US population, 96% of the adult population is within 10-16% of the average for metabolic rate.
http://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
You seriously aren't going to see incredible variance in most of the population, metabolism is incredibly fixed. Even the burn for exercise is rather fixed. Where you'll see variation is the amount of exercise and the amount of NEAT individuals have going on.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »I think the biggest problem with CICO is that it treats all calories the same metabolically (or at least doesn't have a simple way to account for how that may greatly change on an individual basis). Look at the studies cited earlier where protein was the same but there were different percentages of fats and carbs. Cals (or caloric deficits) were the same and yet there were drastically different results based on the macros and a woman's insulin sensitivity/resistance. Do you want to work harder or smarter?
That study showed that our understanding of CICO is either wrong or incomplete. Because they could not explain the results in terms of differences in CO (RMR, NEAT, etc.) -- so either something else is going on there that we don't know about yet or our ability to effectively measure CO is painfully limited.
If I can lose twice as much weight by simply adjusting fat/carb ratio that seems to be a really important fact to know.
What study, please? Do you have a link?
The only way you can lose weight by "simply adjusting fat/carb ratio" is if that "adjustment" puts you in a calorie deficit.
I believe someone cited it earlier, but this link includes the entire article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »I think the biggest problem with CICO is that it treats all calories the same metabolically (or at least doesn't have a simple way to account for how that may greatly change on an individual basis). Look at the studies cited earlier where protein was the same but there were different percentages of fats and carbs. Cals (or caloric deficits) were the same and yet there were drastically different results based on the macros and a woman's insulin sensitivity/resistance. Do you want to work harder or smarter?
That study showed that our understanding of CICO is either wrong or incomplete. Because they could not explain the results in terms of differences in CO (RMR, NEAT, etc.) -- so either something else is going on there that we don't know about yet or our ability to effectively measure CO is painfully limited.
If I can lose twice as much weight by simply adjusting fat/carb ratio that seems to be a really important fact to know.
What study, please? Do you have a link?
The only way you can lose weight by "simply adjusting fat/carb ratio" is if that "adjustment" puts you in a calorie deficit.
I believe someone cited it earlier, but this link includes the entire article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
Don't see any possible problems.Estimates of daily energy intake were made using 3-day food diary, 3-day control diet, and baseline RMR plus an activity factor. ... Participants picked up their diet every 3 days but ate the majority of the food at home. The subjects were otherwise free-living and were expected not to consume food outside of the diet but could have eaten food in addition to or other than the diet.
Don't see any possible problems.Subjects were asked to maintain their usual activity pattern and were regularly questioned regarding activity. Once a week, subjects were weighed and met with a dietitian to determine compliance.
Why did they waste money doing a DXA scan only once, and not before and after? Nevermind that there are issues in DXA scan individuals under various levels of carb loading. It would be interesting to see the IR Low carb group lose quiet a bit of LBM due to water weight loss as their glucose stores drop out of their muscles and other tissues.Within a week of these studies, subjects underwent body composition measurement by DXA using the model DPX whole-body scanner (Lunar Radiation Corp., Madison, WI).
Seeing they accounted for keeping fat type ratios similar and fiber similar. I don't see how much they controlled sodium across diets.
I'd have questions on the normal insulin, HC group losing more weight than predicted.
The IR, HC group sounds like water weight.0 -
I'm not sure you actually understand insulin resistance. Insulin resistance generally happens because you've _stored_ more calories as fat, not are storing more calories as fat. Insulin signals fat cells to take up glucose and blood lipids to make triglycerides for long term fat storage. If you're insulin resistant, your fat cells stop reacting to insulin as much and let sugar and blood lipids float more. This actually would tend to leave more energy available in circulation for activity, not less.lindsey1979 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »CICO is a great guideline but it has its limitations when applied to the human body -- because unlike the physics law in a closed system, the human body has a lot more variables -- we literally have 1000s of chemical reactions in our metabolic pathways, and the coefficients and efficiency of those reactions can vary greatly, especially as influenced by various hormones. Plus, you have the issue that a lb of fat releases 3500 cals, but a lb of muscle releases a lot less (something like 900-1700). So depending on your fat to muscle ratio in your weight loss will greatly change your numbers on the scale -- if you're losing more muscle, the numbers will go down quicker. If you're losing more fat, the numbers will go down slower.
You also have the issue that the CO part is virtually impossible to calculate with any accuracy independently -- most calculate it based on a lot of assumptions (such as common BMR numbers) or in reverse based on their weight loss result (which once again with the fat/muscle issue is only an estimate at best). So when people talk about the law being indisputable, it is true but also not completely accurate as applied to the extremely complex system of the human body.
And then you have things like pesky hormones and how they can effect the equation -- which a lot of people don't want to admit exist because it can get soooo complicated at this point. Whether you're talking insulin, thyroid, HGH, grehlin, leptin, etc. -- it goes on and on and we really are only starting to scratch the surface of how this all works.
An easy hormone example is someone that has insulin resistance. There was a study in 2012 or so that showed that women with good insulin sensitivity lost nearly twice as much weight as their counterparts on a higher carb diet isocaloric deficit diet (protein was the same and caloric deficit was the same). But their insulin resistance counterparts had the exact opposite happen -- they lost nearly twice as much weight on the lower carb diet. Same amounts of protein, same deficit and drastically different results based on carb/fat ratio depending on the individual woman's insulin sensitivity/resistance. So, that's a powerful example of how all calories are not all equal and would produce drastically different results in different women for the same amount of total calories.
And before anyone gets all up in arms about how insulin resistance is rare -- it's not. Per the CDC, over 40% of US adults have insulin resistance at diabetic or prediabetic levels -- the vast majority of which don't know it. I think actual numbers from their 2014 report (which had data from 2010-2012 I think) was something like 9.3% had diabetes and 37% had insulin resistance at prediabetic levels -- that's over 46%, or almost half of the population of US adults! That's a LOT of people.
So, CICO is a great guideline and definitely a place to start when you're looking to lose weight. But, if you find yourself not seeing results after following it (and you're truly accurately weighing/measuring your food), then you need to start to look at issues outside of CICO such as insulin resistance, thyroid, etc. Because you might be in that half of the population that has an issue that shifts the equation from its commonly understood applications.
Oh, you're back. Insulin resistance is still your favourite topic I see.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Meal-to-meal and day-to-day don't matter for CO any more than they matter for weight. Look at the trends.TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »A bit more reading suggests that activity may be responsible at least in part, Cornier cites Levine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9880251 as finding large variations in NEAT responsible for variations in fat gain during overfeeding :
In other words the maths only works if you measure everything rigorously and correctly and don't assume CO is a constant.
With all that said, the confusion is, CICO is still valid.
Yes, but I think the point is that CO is hard to establish because it varies so much between people, and even day to day, or meal to meal. Some foods (CI) will change what an individual's CO is for a time, and some foods (CI) make it easier or harder to eat at a caloric deficit.
Just my interpretation.
How do some foods make it harder or easier to eat at a deficit? Are you talking about caloric density and satiety or something else?
I was referring to satiety and factors like hormones (ex. insulin, cortisol, and IGF-1). Those hormones will have an effect, albeit not a huge one, on CO.
And it's not only CO but how yourbody is able to access energy.
For example, if you're storing more cals as fat (like with insulin resistance), you'll feel more fatigued. To battle the fatigue, you eat more and end up overeating. So even though you need the energy, your body isn't accessing it effectively and you either end up with people that are very fatigued or overeating. That's one of the reasons why it can be so difficult to lose/maintain with IR, especially if you have a lot of carbs in your diet. Similar issues can be seen with thyroid issues, but totally different mechanism.
The ability to metabolize foods effectively for energy is one of the variables I referenced earlier. I choose IR as an example in particular because (1) it's a metabolic condition and (2) it's incredibly widespread (at least in U.S. adults).
And even if it IR is present in 40% of the US population, 96% of the adult population is within 10-16% of the average for metabolic rate.
http://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
You seriously aren't going to see incredible variance in most of the population, metabolism is incredibly fixed. Even the burn for exercise is rather fixed. Where you'll see variation is the amount of exercise and the amount of NEAT individuals have going on.
You're missing some key points about insulin resistance. The whole point is that your muscle, liver and fat cells are RESISTANT to insulin -- not just fat cells, but fat, liver and muscle cells. So, yes, you have more glucose initially floating in the blood stream, but it's not available for energy because it can't get in to your cells because they're insulin resistant!! Then, the body pumps out more insulin to compensate -- sometimes as much as 5x as much than normal. Then that results in a rapid response from blood glucose going into the cells (some for energy, excess gets turned into fat) --so much so that you can end up hypoglycemic (lightheaded, hungry, etc.). Then that triggers hunger cues and the person overeats -- that's the basis of strong cravings and fatigue symptoms IR folks can get. It starts the vicious cycle all over again.
Depending on your level of IR, you'll have diabetes 2 or pre-diabetes. And if you eventually get to the point where your pancreas can't make enough insulin, you end up becoming insulin dependent (where you need to inject insulin) like type 1 diabetics (though their issues stem from an autoimmune system response that destroys the pancreas).
People with good insulin sensitivity don't get these big swings. They're able to access the glucose in their blood stream for energy needs in the cells as need through normal blood sugar regulation. So as the glucose depletes and goes into the cell, you only get low blood sugar because you need more energy (not because it's there but can't make its way into the cells). It's a much more efficient metabolism -- you ideally aren't eating more to access the same amount of energy. You just need to eat as you need the energy.
0 -
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/training-the-obese-beginner.html/lindsey1979 wrote: »
I'm not sure you actually understand insulin resistance. Insulin resistance generally happens because you've _stored_ more calories as fat, not are storing more calories as fat. Insulin signals fat cells to take up glucose and blood lipids to make triglycerides for long term fat storage. If you're insulin resistant, your fat cells stop reacting to insulin as much and let sugar and blood lipids float more. This actually would tend to leave more energy available in circulation for activity, not less.lindsey1979 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »CICO is a great guideline but it has its limitations when applied to the human body -- because unlike the physics law in a closed system, the human body has a lot more variables -- we literally have 1000s of chemical reactions in our metabolic pathways, and the coefficients and efficiency of those reactions can vary greatly, especially as influenced by various hormones. Plus, you have the issue that a lb of fat releases 3500 cals, but a lb of muscle releases a lot less (something like 900-1700). So depending on your fat to muscle ratio in your weight loss will greatly change your numbers on the scale -- if you're losing more muscle, the numbers will go down quicker. If you're losing more fat, the numbers will go down slower.
You also have the issue that the CO part is virtually impossible to calculate with any accuracy independently -- most calculate it based on a lot of assumptions (such as common BMR numbers) or in reverse based on their weight loss result (which once again with the fat/muscle issue is only an estimate at best). So when people talk about the law being indisputable, it is true but also not completely accurate as applied to the extremely complex system of the human body.
And then you have things like pesky hormones and how they can effect the equation -- which a lot of people don't want to admit exist because it can get soooo complicated at this point. Whether you're talking insulin, thyroid, HGH, grehlin, leptin, etc. -- it goes on and on and we really are only starting to scratch the surface of how this all works.
An easy hormone example is someone that has insulin resistance. There was a study in 2012 or so that showed that women with good insulin sensitivity lost nearly twice as much weight as their counterparts on a higher carb diet isocaloric deficit diet (protein was the same and caloric deficit was the same). But their insulin resistance counterparts had the exact opposite happen -- they lost nearly twice as much weight on the lower carb diet. Same amounts of protein, same deficit and drastically different results based on carb/fat ratio depending on the individual woman's insulin sensitivity/resistance. So, that's a powerful example of how all calories are not all equal and would produce drastically different results in different women for the same amount of total calories.
And before anyone gets all up in arms about how insulin resistance is rare -- it's not. Per the CDC, over 40% of US adults have insulin resistance at diabetic or prediabetic levels -- the vast majority of which don't know it. I think actual numbers from their 2014 report (which had data from 2010-2012 I think) was something like 9.3% had diabetes and 37% had insulin resistance at prediabetic levels -- that's over 46%, or almost half of the population of US adults! That's a LOT of people.
So, CICO is a great guideline and definitely a place to start when you're looking to lose weight. But, if you find yourself not seeing results after following it (and you're truly accurately weighing/measuring your food), then you need to start to look at issues outside of CICO such as insulin resistance, thyroid, etc. Because you might be in that half of the population that has an issue that shifts the equation from its commonly understood applications.
Oh, you're back. Insulin resistance is still your favourite topic I see.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Meal-to-meal and day-to-day don't matter for CO any more than they matter for weight. Look at the trends.TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »A bit more reading suggests that activity may be responsible at least in part, Cornier cites Levine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9880251 as finding large variations in NEAT responsible for variations in fat gain during overfeeding :
In other words the maths only works if you measure everything rigorously and correctly and don't assume CO is a constant.
With all that said, the confusion is, CICO is still valid.
Yes, but I think the point is that CO is hard to establish because it varies so much between people, and even day to day, or meal to meal. Some foods (CI) will change what an individual's CO is for a time, and some foods (CI) make it easier or harder to eat at a caloric deficit.
Just my interpretation.
How do some foods make it harder or easier to eat at a deficit? Are you talking about caloric density and satiety or something else?
I was referring to satiety and factors like hormones (ex. insulin, cortisol, and IGF-1). Those hormones will have an effect, albeit not a huge one, on CO.
And it's not only CO but how yourbody is able to access energy.
For example, if you're storing more cals as fat (like with insulin resistance), you'll feel more fatigued. To battle the fatigue, you eat more and end up overeating. So even though you need the energy, your body isn't accessing it effectively and you either end up with people that are very fatigued or overeating. That's one of the reasons why it can be so difficult to lose/maintain with IR, especially if you have a lot of carbs in your diet. Similar issues can be seen with thyroid issues, but totally different mechanism.
The ability to metabolize foods effectively for energy is one of the variables I referenced earlier. I choose IR as an example in particular because (1) it's a metabolic condition and (2) it's incredibly widespread (at least in U.S. adults).
And even if it IR is present in 40% of the US population, 96% of the adult population is within 10-16% of the average for metabolic rate.
http://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
You seriously aren't going to see incredible variance in most of the population, metabolism is incredibly fixed. Even the burn for exercise is rather fixed. Where you'll see variation is the amount of exercise and the amount of NEAT individuals have going on.
You're missing some key points about insulin resistance. The whole point is that your muscle, liver and fat cells are RESISTANT to insulin -- not just fat cells, but fat, liver and muscle cells. So, yes, you have more glucose initially floating in the blood stream, but it's not available for energy because it can't get in to your cells because they're insulin resistant!! Then, the body pumps out more insulin to compensate -- sometimes as much as 5x as much than normal. Then that results in a rapid response from blood glucose going into the cells (some for energy, excess gets turned into fat) --so much so that you can end up hypoglycemic (lightheaded, hungry, etc.). Then that triggers hunger cues and the person overeats -- that's the basis of strong cravings and fatigue symptoms IR folks can get. It starts the vicious cycle all over again.
Depending on your level of IR, you'll have diabetes 2 or pre-diabetes. And if you eventually get to the point where your pancreas can't make enough insulin, you end up becoming insulin dependent (where you need to inject insulin) like type 1 diabetics (though their issues stem from an autoimmune system response that destroys the pancreas).
People with good insulin sensitivity don't get these big swings. They're able to access the glucose in their blood stream for energy needs in the cells as need through normal blood sugar regulation. So as the glucose depletes and goes into the cell, you only get low blood sugar because you need more energy (not because it's there but can't make its way into the cells). It's a much more efficient metabolism -- you ideally aren't eating more to access the same amount of energy. You just need to eat as you need the energy.
Seriously. You don't understand IR, and Lyle McDonald does. Your understanding of it is because it is a phantom you're willing to blame for failures and difficulties instead of properly understanding it as a metabolic adaptation in the light of the most important dogma of biology: evolution. Simply put, metabolic pathways have already dug to as efficient as they without starting over from scratch, and thus most people's bodies are pretty similar in how much energy they burn, and how much they store. We don't tend to have huge magical metabolic differences in getting fat, we tend to have huge mental differences in how we react to becoming overweight and balancing it.That insulin resistance is actually a “good thing” is especially true under both low-carbohydrate and low-calorie dieting conditions. If the fat cells are trying to keep calories out (and push them to burning elsewhere), this can facilitate fat loss. In this vein, one of the major adaptations to getting leaner is a massive increase in insulin sensitivity, which is part of what makes further fat mobilization more difficult as folks get leaner. I’d mention that this is exactly the opposite of how most people think it works (insulin sensitivity actually predicts weight gain, not the other way around).0 -
"Estimates of daily energy intake were made using 3-day food diary, 3-day control diet, and baseline RMR plus an activity factor. ..."
^^ This is not science.0 -
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/training-the-obese-beginner.html/lindsey1979 wrote: »
I'm not sure you actually understand insulin resistance. Insulin resistance generally happens because you've _stored_ more calories as fat, not are storing more calories as fat. Insulin signals fat cells to take up glucose and blood lipids to make triglycerides for long term fat storage. If you're insulin resistant, your fat cells stop reacting to insulin as much and let sugar and blood lipids float more. This actually would tend to leave more energy available in circulation for activity, not less.lindsey1979 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »CICO is a great guideline but it has its limitations when applied to the human body -- because unlike the physics law in a closed system, the human body has a lot more variables -- we literally have 1000s of chemical reactions in our metabolic pathways, and the coefficients and efficiency of those reactions can vary greatly, especially as influenced by various hormones. Plus, you have the issue that a lb of fat releases 3500 cals, but a lb of muscle releases a lot less (something like 900-1700). So depending on your fat to muscle ratio in your weight loss will greatly change your numbers on the scale -- if you're losing more muscle, the numbers will go down quicker. If you're losing more fat, the numbers will go down slower.
You also have the issue that the CO part is virtually impossible to calculate with any accuracy independently -- most calculate it based on a lot of assumptions (such as common BMR numbers) or in reverse based on their weight loss result (which once again with the fat/muscle issue is only an estimate at best). So when people talk about the law being indisputable, it is true but also not completely accurate as applied to the extremely complex system of the human body.
And then you have things like pesky hormones and how they can effect the equation -- which a lot of people don't want to admit exist because it can get soooo complicated at this point. Whether you're talking insulin, thyroid, HGH, grehlin, leptin, etc. -- it goes on and on and we really are only starting to scratch the surface of how this all works.
An easy hormone example is someone that has insulin resistance. There was a study in 2012 or so that showed that women with good insulin sensitivity lost nearly twice as much weight as their counterparts on a higher carb diet isocaloric deficit diet (protein was the same and caloric deficit was the same). But their insulin resistance counterparts had the exact opposite happen -- they lost nearly twice as much weight on the lower carb diet. Same amounts of protein, same deficit and drastically different results based on carb/fat ratio depending on the individual woman's insulin sensitivity/resistance. So, that's a powerful example of how all calories are not all equal and would produce drastically different results in different women for the same amount of total calories.
And before anyone gets all up in arms about how insulin resistance is rare -- it's not. Per the CDC, over 40% of US adults have insulin resistance at diabetic or prediabetic levels -- the vast majority of which don't know it. I think actual numbers from their 2014 report (which had data from 2010-2012 I think) was something like 9.3% had diabetes and 37% had insulin resistance at prediabetic levels -- that's over 46%, or almost half of the population of US adults! That's a LOT of people.
So, CICO is a great guideline and definitely a place to start when you're looking to lose weight. But, if you find yourself not seeing results after following it (and you're truly accurately weighing/measuring your food), then you need to start to look at issues outside of CICO such as insulin resistance, thyroid, etc. Because you might be in that half of the population that has an issue that shifts the equation from its commonly understood applications.
Oh, you're back. Insulin resistance is still your favourite topic I see.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Meal-to-meal and day-to-day don't matter for CO any more than they matter for weight. Look at the trends.TheDudeLovesFood wrote: »A bit more reading suggests that activity may be responsible at least in part, Cornier cites Levine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9880251 as finding large variations in NEAT responsible for variations in fat gain during overfeeding :
In other words the maths only works if you measure everything rigorously and correctly and don't assume CO is a constant.
With all that said, the confusion is, CICO is still valid.
Yes, but I think the point is that CO is hard to establish because it varies so much between people, and even day to day, or meal to meal. Some foods (CI) will change what an individual's CO is for a time, and some foods (CI) make it easier or harder to eat at a caloric deficit.
Just my interpretation.
How do some foods make it harder or easier to eat at a deficit? Are you talking about caloric density and satiety or something else?
I was referring to satiety and factors like hormones (ex. insulin, cortisol, and IGF-1). Those hormones will have an effect, albeit not a huge one, on CO.
And it's not only CO but how yourbody is able to access energy.
For example, if you're storing more cals as fat (like with insulin resistance), you'll feel more fatigued. To battle the fatigue, you eat more and end up overeating. So even though you need the energy, your body isn't accessing it effectively and you either end up with people that are very fatigued or overeating. That's one of the reasons why it can be so difficult to lose/maintain with IR, especially if you have a lot of carbs in your diet. Similar issues can be seen with thyroid issues, but totally different mechanism.
The ability to metabolize foods effectively for energy is one of the variables I referenced earlier. I choose IR as an example in particular because (1) it's a metabolic condition and (2) it's incredibly widespread (at least in U.S. adults).
And even if it IR is present in 40% of the US population, 96% of the adult population is within 10-16% of the average for metabolic rate.
http://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
You seriously aren't going to see incredible variance in most of the population, metabolism is incredibly fixed. Even the burn for exercise is rather fixed. Where you'll see variation is the amount of exercise and the amount of NEAT individuals have going on.
You're missing some key points about insulin resistance. The whole point is that your muscle, liver and fat cells are RESISTANT to insulin -- not just fat cells, but fat, liver and muscle cells. So, yes, you have more glucose initially floating in the blood stream, but it's not available for energy because it can't get in to your cells because they're insulin resistant!! Then, the body pumps out more insulin to compensate -- sometimes as much as 5x as much than normal. Then that results in a rapid response from blood glucose going into the cells (some for energy, excess gets turned into fat) --so much so that you can end up hypoglycemic (lightheaded, hungry, etc.). Then that triggers hunger cues and the person overeats -- that's the basis of strong cravings and fatigue symptoms IR folks can get. It starts the vicious cycle all over again.
Depending on your level of IR, you'll have diabetes 2 or pre-diabetes. And if you eventually get to the point where your pancreas can't make enough insulin, you end up becoming insulin dependent (where you need to inject insulin) like type 1 diabetics (though their issues stem from an autoimmune system response that destroys the pancreas).
People with good insulin sensitivity don't get these big swings. They're able to access the glucose in their blood stream for energy needs in the cells as need through normal blood sugar regulation. So as the glucose depletes and goes into the cell, you only get low blood sugar because you need more energy (not because it's there but can't make its way into the cells). It's a much more efficient metabolism -- you ideally aren't eating more to access the same amount of energy. You just need to eat as you need the energy.
Seriously. You don't understand IR, and Lyle McDonald does. Your understanding of it is because it is a phantom you're willing to blame for failures and difficulties instead of properly understanding it as a metabolic adaptation in the light of the most important dogma of biology: evolution. Simply put, metabolic pathways have already dug to as efficient as they without starting over from scratch, and thus most people's bodies are pretty similar in how much energy they burn, and how much they store. We don't tend to have huge magical metabolic differences in getting fat, we tend to have huge mental differences in how we react to becoming overweight and balancing it.That insulin resistance is actually a “good thing” is especially true under both low-carbohydrate and low-calorie dieting conditions. If the fat cells are trying to keep calories out (and push them to burning elsewhere), this can facilitate fat loss. In this vein, one of the major adaptations to getting leaner is a massive increase in insulin sensitivity, which is part of what makes further fat mobilization more difficult as folks get leaner. I’d mention that this is exactly the opposite of how most people think it works (insulin sensitivity actually predicts weight gain, not the other way around).
Lyle understand IR (from what I can tell), but you don't seem to understand what Lyle wrote. Or you're intentionally misrepresenting what he said. he even talked about if you have IR, how it impacts diet choice -- that a restricted carb diet will help those with IR (even after fat loss). I think you need to go back and read all of what Lyle wrote about IR.
Yes, there are times when certain things are good in certain contexts and bad in other contexts. I totally agree that in certain contexts, IR can be good -- but that's not the same thing as saying it's good thing in all cases. Lyle discussed a very specific situation -- none of which we've been discussing here.
And, yes, there are certain things in an evolutionary context are an advantage. Those that held onto their fat stores the best or built them the quickest most definitely would be an advantage in an evolutionary sense because it would provide the most protection for survival in times of famine. But, that advantage in that context becomes a disadvantage in the modern times when food is plentiful -- like in the US theses days -- because such people are not facing extended times of famine as they would have in the prior times of our evolution. Constant plenty is a relatively modern occurrence for the masses. That "blessing" now becomes a "curse" -- which you see in all the high levels of obesity.
Same thing goes with efficiency and what exactly you're talking about being efficient -- the metabolism of glucose, the use of glucose in the muscle, etc. Those all have very different results depending on which perspective you're discussing. For example, if we're talking about muscles becoming efficient -- that's great for a marathon runner because he/she can do more work for less energy (either from food or fat stores) so she/he can run further. For someone that is trying to lose weight, it's the exact opposite because it means that they burn less calories for the same amount of work. So they now how to work more to burn the same amount of calories. This is one of the reasons some studies believe that those who have lost 10% or more of their bodyweight have a lower than expected RMR than those of a similar weight/comp that didn't recently lose a lot of weight. Whether that ever recovers over the longterm remains to be seen (it apparently does not change for the first year after weight loss) -- which likely also accounts for why many people find maintenance even more difficult than actual losing.
Also, what failures are you talking about? I just want people to work smarter, not harder. That if they do have a problem like IR, thyroid or countless others that they figure that out and then adopt strategies that best suit their specific circumstances. That's not excuse for failure -- that's just being smart. I mention IR in particular because it affects such an overwhelming amount of people (over 40% of the US population) -- so it's likely a lot of people on this site looking to lose weight have it, and that could affect their strategies (like the carb restricted diet Lyle mentions).
That's why I've said from the very beginning, hey, CICO is a great starting point guideline, but if you're not seeing the results you expect according to the basic calculations, it's a good idea to start to look beyond them because you may have other things going on in your system that make the calculation, from a practical standpoint, much more complex and/or confusing. Continuing to cut calories either by too little food or too much exercise isn't the solution in such contexts and can actually make things worse -- finding out what is off and having it corrected so you can eat/exercise like a "normal" person is the solution. Why do you find that so threatening?
0 -
And how ironic that so much of this thread is a long, drawn-out battle over insulin resistance when actually very few of the population suffers from that condition. For most people (yes, even the very morbidly obese), CICO is the basic premise of weight loss.0
-
And how ironic that so much of this thread is a long, drawn-out battle over insulin resistance when actually very few of the population suffers from that condition. For most people (yes, even the very morbidly obese), CICO is the basic premise of weight loss.
Well, I guess if you think 46.3% (or roughly 115 MILLION) of US adults is "very few", yeah, I guess that would be true. Perhaps you should educate yourself on how incredibly common IR is before stating such things.
0 -
oh, that's right, I forgot who you were.....lindsey1979 wrote: »And how ironic that so much of this thread is a long, drawn-out battle over insulin resistance when actually very few of the population suffers from that condition. For most people (yes, even the very morbidly obese), CICO is the basic premise of weight loss.
Well, I guess if you think 46.3% of US adults is "very few", yeah, I guess that would be true. Perhaps you should educate yourself on how incredibly common IR is before stating such things.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions