CICO
Replies
-
http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/
The article slams CICO. It says CICO doesn't account for thermal and excretion losses.
I think a person should do CICO, but could also experiment with other things to see if it helps more than what the cal deficit says will happen. This is what I have stated over and over and not what a lot have insinuated.
I haven't proposed overeating as some have assumed. Also, unless your on a drip or something, even diets with overal deficits have periods of time where your not in a deficit. A non-linear dynamic model is needed to understand what is happening and not just a static linear model. During short periods of time you hit saturation and magnitude rate limits not taken into account with a static linear model. If things worked like the static linear model, as almost all here believe in, we would have gained 3 or 4 times the weight we gained by all the eating we did for years.
Also see:
http://www.leangains.com/2010/06/intermittent-fasting-and-stubborn-body.html?m=1
This was the article I mentioned but couldn't find. He says it might be wishful thinking but there is is antedotal evidence to support his ideas and what I've been saying.
I ate 5 small meals a day for three months and have been eating IF for two months. The only difference I have experienced is that it's easier for me to keep to my calorie goal with IF.
Regular fat vs stubborn fat? Definitely not experiencing anything different there. I always assumed it was genetics.
I didn't know IF was a thing until MFP. It's how I have eaten for years. If it made a big difference I wouldn't be eating at a deficit now!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/
The article slams CICO. It says CICO doesn't account for thermal and excretion losses.
I think a person should do CICO, but could also experiment with other things to see if it helps more than what the cal deficit says will happen. This is what I have stated over and over and not what a lot have insinuated.
You post here to complain that people here aren't being thoughtful enough and even include some patronizing comments assuming that most here just can't understand mathematics. In turn, you were provided (more than once) with links to the studies and researchers currently regarded as the best in the world when it comes to exploring models for approximating CICO.
You've never addressed any of the points brought up in those articles, and persist in either misunderstanding or mis-stating what's being conveyed here about what CICO is (and isn't). Instead, you respond with a blog article that "slams CICO" that's filled with typos and inaccuracies, written by some guy based on personal opinions coming from who-knows-what.
You conclude by trying to reference "antedotal" (do you mean anecdotal?) evidence.
Honestly, I've gotten to the point where I think you're just trolling, and I'm sure your thread will continue to generate responses, because that's what trolling creates. But I think it's a shame, because these boards deserve better - especially related to a topic as potentially interesting and challenging as talking about some of the elements that influence CICO. Have fun trolling, I guess. Hopefully those who actually want a conversation about the topic can find it elsewhere.
0 -
http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/
The article slams CICO. It says CICO doesn't account for thermal and excretion losses.
I think a person should do CICO, but could also experiment with other things to see if it helps more than what the cal deficit says will happen. This is what I have stated over and over and not what a lot have insinuated.
You post to complain that people here aren't being thoughtful enough and even include some patronizing comments assuming that most here just can't understand math. In turn, you were provided (more than once) with links to the studies and researchers currently regarded as the best in the world when it comes to exploring models for approximating CICO.
You've never addressed any of the points brought up in those articles, and persist in either misunderstanding or mis-stating what's being conveyed about what CICO is (and isn't). Instead, you respond with a blog article that "slams CICO" that's filled with typos and inaccuracies, written by some guy based on personal opinions coming from who-knows-what.
You conclude by trying to reference "antedotal" (do you mean anecdotal?) evidence.
Honestly, I've gotten to the point where I think you're just trolling, and I'm sure your thread will continue to generate responses, because that's what trolling creates. But I think it's a shame, because these boards deserve better - especially related to a topic as potentially interesting and challenging as talking about some of the elements that influence CICO. Have fun trolling, I guess. Hopefully those who actually want a conversation about the topic can find it elsewhere.
0 -
http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/
The article slams CICO. It says CICO doesn't account for thermal and excretion losses.
I think a person should do CICO, but could also experiment with other things to see if it helps more than what the cal deficit says will happen. This is what I have stated over and over and not what a lot have insinuated.
You post to complain that people here aren't being thoughtful enough and even include some patronizing comments assuming that most here just can't understand math. In turn, you were provided (more than once) with links to the studies and researchers currently regarded as the best in the world when it comes to exploring models for approximating CICO.
You've never addressed any of the points brought up in those articles, and persist in either misunderstanding or mis-stating what's being conveyed about what CICO is (and isn't). Instead, you respond with a blog article that "slams CICO" that's filled with typos and inaccuracies, written by some guy based on personal opinions coming from who-knows-what.
You conclude by trying to reference "antedotal" (do you mean anecdotal?) evidence.
Honestly, I've gotten to the point where I think you're just trolling, and I'm sure your thread will continue to generate responses, because that's what trolling creates. But I think it's a shame, because these boards deserve better - especially related to a topic as potentially interesting and challenging as talking about some of the elements that influence CICO. Have fun trolling, I guess. Hopefully those who actually want a conversation about the topic can find it elsewhere.
+10 -
+2http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/
The article slams CICO. It says CICO doesn't account for thermal and excretion losses.
I think a person should do CICO, but could also experiment with other things to see if it helps more than what the cal deficit says will happen. This is what I have stated over and over and not what a lot have insinuated.
You post to complain that people here aren't being thoughtful enough and even include some patronizing comments assuming that most here just can't understand math. In turn, you were provided (more than once) with links to the studies and researchers currently regarded as the best in the world when it comes to exploring models for approximating CICO.
You've never addressed any of the points brought up in those articles, and persist in either misunderstanding or mis-stating what's being conveyed about what CICO is (and isn't). Instead, you respond with a blog article that "slams CICO" that's filled with typos and inaccuracies, written by some guy based on personal opinions coming from who-knows-what.
You conclude by trying to reference "antedotal" (do you mean anecdotal?) evidence.
Honestly, I've gotten to the point where I think you're just trolling, and I'm sure your thread will continue to generate responses, because that's what trolling creates. But I think it's a shame, because these boards deserve better - especially related to a topic as potentially interesting and challenging as talking about some of the elements that influence CICO. Have fun trolling, I guess. Hopefully those who actually want a conversation about the topic can find it elsewhere.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/
The article slams CICO. It says CICO doesn't account for thermal and excretion losses.
I think a person should do CICO, but could also experiment with other things to see if it helps more than what the cal deficit says will happen. This is what I have stated over and over and not what a lot have insinuated.
You post to complain that people here aren't being thoughtful enough and even include some patronizing comments assuming that most here just can't understand math. In turn, you were provided (more than once) with links to the studies and researchers currently regarded as the best in the world when it comes to exploring models for approximating CICO.
You've never addressed any of the points brought up in those articles, and persist in either misunderstanding or mis-stating what's being conveyed about what CICO is (and isn't). Instead, you respond with a blog article that "slams CICO" that's filled with typos and inaccuracies, written by some guy based on personal opinions coming from who-knows-what.
You conclude by trying to reference "antedotal" (do you mean anecdotal?) evidence.
Honestly, I've gotten to the point where I think you're just trolling, and I'm sure your thread will continue to generate responses, because that's what trolling creates. But I think it's a shame, because these boards deserve better - especially related to a topic as potentially interesting and challenging as talking about some of the elements that influence CICO. Have fun trolling, I guess. Hopefully those who actually want a conversation about the topic can find it elsewhere.
+1
+10000000 -
http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/
The article slams CICO. It says CICO doesn't account for thermal and excretion losses.
I think a person should do CICO, but could also experiment with other things to see if it helps more than what the cal deficit says will happen. This is what I have stated over and over and not what a lot have insinuated.
You post to complain that people here aren't being thoughtful enough and even include some patronizing comments assuming that most here just can't understand math. In turn, you were provided (more than once) with links to the studies and researchers currently regarded as the best in the world when it comes to exploring models for approximating CICO.
You've never addressed any of the points brought up in those articles, and persist in either misunderstanding or mis-stating what's being conveyed about what CICO is (and isn't). Instead, you respond with a blog article that "slams CICO" that's filled with typos and inaccuracies, written by some guy based on personal opinions coming from who-knows-what.
You conclude by trying to reference "antedotal" (do you mean anecdotal?) evidence.
Honestly, I've gotten to the point where I think you're just trolling, and I'm sure your thread will continue to generate responses, because that's what trolling creates. But I think it's a shame, because these boards deserve better - especially related to a topic as potentially interesting and challenging as talking about some of the elements that influence CICO. Have fun trolling, I guess. Hopefully those who actually want a conversation about the topic can find it elsewhere.
Yep.0 -
susan100df wrote: »http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/
The article slams CICO. It says CICO doesn't account for thermal and excretion losses.
I think a person should do CICO, but could also experiment with other things to see if it helps more than what the cal deficit says will happen. This is what I have stated over and over and not what a lot have insinuated.
I haven't proposed overeating as some have assumed. Also, unless your on a drip or something, even diets with overal deficits have periods of time where your not in a deficit. A non-linear dynamic model is needed to understand what is happening and not just a static linear model. During short periods of time you hit saturation and magnitude rate limits not taken into account with a static linear model. If things worked like the static linear model, as almost all here believe in, we would have gained 3 or 4 times the weight we gained by all the eating we did for years.
Also see:
http://www.leangains.com/2010/06/intermittent-fasting-and-stubborn-body.html?m=1
This was the article I mentioned but couldn't find. He says it might be wishful thinking but there is is antedotal evidence to support his ideas and what I've been saying.
I ate 5 small meals a day for three months and have been eating IF for two months. The only difference I have experienced is that it's easier for me to keep to my calorie goal with IF.
Regular fat vs stubborn fat? Definitely not experiencing anything different there. I always assumed it was genetics.
I didn't know IF was a thing until MFP. It's how I have eaten for years. If it made a big difference I wouldn't be eating at a deficit now!
It is. Adrenergic receptors determine how willingly the fat in a certain area gets used for energy. The ones that don't want to be used are in the areas around your stomach mostly and for women also the butt and hips. Both for evolutionary reasons of protection in the first case and attraction in the second.
Edit: names are hard.0 -
When discussing the laws of thermodynamics, anything that has the ability to cause a change in energy of itself or its surroundings could be called a machine - It isn't demeaning to humans to consider them a machine in this way. Nothing in the laws requires a machine be deterministic or simple.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Tinawood40 wrote: »Ok so I believe in CICO - I've lost 33 lbs and I'm sold. But I do wonder sometimes why some weeks I don't lose weight then others I lose more than usual. My diet is much the same all the time - I log super carefully and weigh my food. If it's all CICO - then every 3500 calories down should result in a lb lost. Then I hear - weight loss is not linear - why not ? If it's simple math then every time I eat at a 3500 calorie deficit I should lose a pound. I have gone for a couple of 2 week stretches with no losses eating and logging the same food. And what about plateau's ? How the hell does that happen ???
Our bodies are not machines
Yes they are. All physical processes in the body can be modeled with mathematical equations. We may need to develop some math to do it but it can be done.
sorry, but that is a pretty absurd claim. If our bodies were machines then when one was bulking with a structured progressive overload program you would be able to convert 100% of excess calories to muscle building and have zero fat gains, or, conversely, one would be able to cut with a structured lifting program and adequate protein intake and have 100% fat loss with zero muscle loss.
our bodies are complex systems, yes, but they are not machines…
When one is driving a car (inarguably a machine) 100% of the gasoline is not converted to forward motion. To say that because our bodies aren't 100% efficient makes them not machines is a nonsensical statement.
and the counter argument that our bodies should be viewed as machines is just as nonsensical...
I think the original post about the body not being a machine would have been best made with a slight modifier:
Our bodies are not [simple] machines.
The idea that body function can be simply described by an equation that governs individual responses to all dietary parameters is naive, at best. It's like saying I can predict Star Wars movie sales in the US by the number of gallons of gas sold in all other nations (not even knowing what was sold last week or what is grey market). The body is a very complex machine; it is THAT complex.
i typically refer to the body as a complex system ...but maybe that is just semantics....0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Am I the only one who finds the thought of trying to manipulate your digestive process so that you overwhelm it with food during a short duration to the point that it cannot absorb all of the nutrients and calories from your food a bit disturbing?
No, I do too, and being able to eat more calories in an unpleasant-sounding way doesn't seem that beneficial, even if possible (same with the idea that if you eat mainly protein you can eat more calories).
It also reminds me of the efforts to alter rice so you absorb fewer of the calories. I think most people are better off learning to eat an appropriate amount of food.
To each his own. I grew up practically force feeding myself trying to gain weight. I like to eat tell full. Eating small meals and never filling up SUCKS! Eating tell full isn't unpleasant. I don't gorge myself. As a matter of fact my stomach has shrunk so much on this diet that I can only eat about one plate of food at a time now.
You have missed the point!
I just read some leangains info where the author talks in a bunch of physiological terms about how fasting helps with weight loss. I'm goi going to read more on this subject (fasting).
Most of you people are thinking about what is going on in the body in a static sense (what has happened at the end of the day). You need to look at it in a dynamic sense (what is happening at each instant of time). The static model misses a lot of what is going on for things that are important (rate limits, saturation limits, and other non-linearities). Your way of thinking would allow two ladies to have a baby in 4.5 months.
No one here is looking at this in a static way, though. You're the one presuming that.
I'm frankly disturbed, as blankiefinder mentioned, by your approach here.
Let's back up for a minute though.
You introducing the topic of a dynamic model is nothing new to people who've been around the forums a long time. We all know the effects of ongoing weight loss and changing body composition plus length of time spent dieting on not only metabolism but the rate at which the weight drops.
Evgeni, a long time ago, had an excellent thread on the subject of adaptive thermogenesis.
I've been eating at deficit for a year now. My system had adapted to lower caloric intake. I'm doing a diet break right now, eating at maintenance (which for me, a 53 year old woman who is considerably shorter than you is about what you're eating to lose) for a month. My system hormones will reset and I'll go back to eating at deficit.
This is how you handle plateaus. I go through periods where I scale back and increase my activity. My body adapts.
I still think you're looking in the wrong places for answers.
I think this probaly is the wrong place (IF forum probably better). I don't dissagree with any methods or discussion you just propossed. I do find the resistance by many to consider what I'm saying interesting though. Why? I believe in CICO, I think there are variables that effect it. Why can't that be discussed. People have jumped to all sorts of conclusions like pigging out, cico doesn’t matter, etc. People are very closed minded here in my opinion and have insinuated lots that was never said or meant. Am I damaging this forum or something? Why can't people have a civil discussion instead of being so dismissive and insinuating so much? Just have a discussion for heaven's sake and be respectful of different opinions. If you don't agree, state why and don't just be dismissive. Site some evidence or something and don't mock and ridicule. I'm sure there are a lot of very smart people here, so have a discussion please.
This was meant for this thread and not you PeachyCarol.
It's not that we're resistant to discussing these issues, blambo.
It's that in the end, what you're suggesting are things that don't make huge differences and will ultimately come down to personal preference for individual dieters.
I simply don't think what you're suggesting is helpful to a large number of people.
Again, that is your opinion without sources. I respect your opinion but I reserve the right to disagree.That is my exact question you posed. I don't know the answer. I think eating the same cals in a shorter window is probably better just as a hunch and also knowing all physicsl processes are rate and saturation limited. If that makes a differrnce or not, I don't know. There might be other effects also. I will keep looking and if I find something I will post more. Thanks.
This meta-review of 40 different studies says otherwise: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26384657
In the Summary (emphasis added):Intermittent fasting thus represents a valid - albeit apparently not superior - option to continuous energy restriction for weight loss.
I read the abstract. It puts forth the assertion that breaking a fast intermittently (IF) may keep the body from adapting to fasting (keep the metabolism from slowing down) as compared to long term fasting (continuous fasting). The sentence before your quote said the studies were not set up to figure it out and then strangely makes the conclusion that it didn't help (IF vs continuous fasting).
Apparently the articles didn't even compare IF vs many small meals! This didn't even touch on the topic being discussed! At least that is the way I read it.0 -
http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/
The article slams CICO. It says CICO doesn't account for thermal and excretion losses.
I think a person should do CICO, but could also experiment with other things to see if it helps more than what the cal deficit says will happen. This is what I have stated over and over and not what a lot have insinuated.
You post to complain that people here aren't being thoughtful enough and even include some patronizing comments assuming that most here just can't understand math. In turn, you were provided (more than once) with links to the studies and researchers currently regarded as the best in the world when it comes to exploring models for approximating CICO.
You've never addressed any of the points brought up in those articles, and persist in either misunderstanding or mis-stating what's being conveyed about what CICO is (and isn't). Instead, you respond with a blog article that "slams CICO" that's filled with typos and inaccuracies, written by some guy based on personal opinions coming from who-knows-what.
You conclude by trying to reference "antedotal" (do you mean anecdotal?) evidence.
Honestly, I've gotten to the point where I think you're just trolling, and I'm sure your thread will continue to generate responses, because that's what trolling creates. But I think it's a shame, because these boards deserve better - especially related to a topic as potentially interesting and challenging as talking about some of the elements that influence CICO. Have fun trolling, I guess. Hopefully those who actually want a conversation about the topic can find it elsewhere.
Cue the applause
0 -
I am a simple girl - for now am happy to stick with CICO.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »@lemurcat12 Lost track of this bookmark in the others, and forgot all about it for a while. Though it was worth responding to, even though it appears the OP has moved on.lemurcat12 wrote: »You seem to be talking about a different thread, as in this one I see lots of people attempting to discuss the topic seriously. Not agreeing with OP, who himself seems to have changed his position some, but that doesn't mean not discussing seriously.
IMO, your need to slam the other participants in the thread is more disruptive than those of us debating seriously with OP.
I've read the whole thread, and there is as much time if not more from people trying to convince the OP his desires make no sense. My comments were intended to slam the posters it applied to as an "if the shoe fits" type statement. And it fit quite a few.
I disagree.lemurcat12 wrote: »This seems off-topic. Many of us have pointed out that there are numerous individual reasons why a particular eating style will work for one person vs. another, and that has to do with what feels satisfying, and is why IF can be a really good strategy independent of whether there's much of a difference in how many calories one can eat. But OP keeps saying that he is interested in maximizing the number of calories one can eat.
This is where you confuse me at times. You openly state " Many of us have pointed out", but consider my input off topic? I posted actual peer review studies on IF, mentioned the satiety and other factors, and as such added no input that others didn't do as well. It was either all relevant, or none of it was. And being that the OP did move the goal posts some, I thought it was all relevant. If the OP had stated he didn't want to discuss IF or those topics, I wouldn't have provided the info.
I try to stay on track with the OPs intentions, regardless of who it is. If it's your thread and you don't want to discuss fasting, I'd keep my comments from fasting.
Many of us have said to OP that eating decisions should prioritize satiety and satisfaction factors vs how many calories one can take in, if there are minor differences, as those differences are going to be so small as to not matter. It's why arguments about meal timing, etc., are majoring in the minors. I totally agree -- as does everyone -- that satiety is an issue, but OP made it clear in response that he is focusing on this (false) idea that one can eat way more calories, or trick the system, if you find a way to do it. So talking about satiety reasons to do IF (while IMPO those are the reasons to do IF) are off the topic as defined by OP.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is interesting -- do you have a link? I'd love to read it.
Here is one that is similar, if I find the one that includes the short term overweight vs the long term overweight I'll post it.
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0104552
Thanks, I'll check it out.lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't see people as saying that psychological issues and feelings don't matter. But people need to figure out how to deal with those issues, of course, and IMO trying to find a trick so that one can keep overeating (in terms of # of calories) specifically does NOT help with that struggle.
In the same intention as the above, I brought it up as a "shoe fits" statement due to the people on this thread making clear that the OPs desires and feelings were invalid, and interjecting feelings in attempts to sway his desires. Personally to me, all feelings on issues matter, as we are all somewhat driven by personal feelings, conscious of it or not. And in this thread, some of the same people interjecting the OPs feelings while interjecting their own are some of the ones that often claim "dem feelz" have no place in a discussion.
OP wasn't talking about psychological issues or even acknowledging them. He was saying someone might need to eat super low calories to lose (not true) and could change that by doing some other eating style -- tricking the system to allowing more calories, specifically the idea one could gorge in a narrow time window.But I should also comment that I see your comment about finding a trick to avoid overeating while valid, has no application to the OP as he has never stated any such issue.
See above. That's the trick -- it's not to avoid overeating, but is, as I said, to permit overeating. He also claimed that limiting yourself to one plate was deprivation.
Being too lazy to multi quote every section here.
But if you want to do an analysis on the thread relevance, I'll gladly admit I'm wrong if the majority are discussing the OPs desires rather than oppose them. Please include a factor of the "don't care, insert gif, mock" that got cleaned up early on.
As for my comments, I'm quite certain that I knew the intentions far better than anyone assuming they did.
Satiety matters to those that have issues with it. Though I consider it, I consider it in relation to my eating style (meal timing, size, etc). If doing that is "majoring in the minors" then everyone that considers satiety at all as a factor and takes it into consideration is doing so.
The OP addressed the mental and psychology issues on page 3 of the thread in response to another poster bringing them up. That is fact. So unless you can view yourself as being as humanly error prone as the rest of us, you're simply proving a point that you can ignore certain facts.
I won't make any attempt to speak for the OP, but if he was looking for tricks to overeat, the fact that he is losing faster than expected gave him every opportunity to do that and still lose weight. I viewed his comments and quests as looking for answers, not "tricks" as you label them. But I'm confident that only he can answer that question, not me, you or someone else that would just be guessing.PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Am I the only one who finds the thought of trying to manipulate your digestive process so that you overwhelm it with food during a short duration to the point that it cannot absorb all of the nutrients and calories from your food a bit disturbing?
No, I do too, and being able to eat more calories in an unpleasant-sounding way doesn't seem that beneficial, even if possible (same with the idea that if you eat mainly protein you can eat more calories).
It also reminds me of the efforts to alter rice so you absorb fewer of the calories. I think most people are better off learning to eat an appropriate amount of food.
To each his own. I grew up practically force feeding myself trying to gain weight. I like to eat tell full. Eating small meals and never filling up SUCKS! Eating tell full isn't unpleasant. I don't gorge myself. As a matter of fact my stomach has shrunk so much on this diet that I can only eat about one plate of food at a time now.
You have missed the point!
I just read some leangains info where the author talks in a bunch of physiological terms about how fasting helps with weight loss. I'm goi going to read more on this subject (fasting).
Most of you people are thinking about what is going on in the body in a static sense (what has happened at the end of the day). You need to look at it in a dynamic sense (what is happening at each instant of time). The static model misses a lot of what is going on for things that are important (rate limits, saturation limits, and other non-linearities). Your way of thinking would allow two ladies to have a baby in 4.5 months.
No one here is looking at this in a static way, though. You're the one presuming that.
I'm frankly disturbed, as blankiefinder mentioned, by your approach here.
Let's back up for a minute though.
You introducing the topic of a dynamic model is nothing new to people who've been around the forums a long time. We all know the effects of ongoing weight loss and changing body composition plus length of time spent dieting on not only metabolism but the rate at which the weight drops.
Evgeni, a long time ago, had an excellent thread on the subject of adaptive thermogenesis.
I've been eating at deficit for a year now. My system had adapted to lower caloric intake. I'm doing a diet break right now, eating at maintenance (which for me, a 53 year old woman who is considerably shorter than you is about what you're eating to lose) for a month. My system hormones will reset and I'll go back to eating at deficit.
This is how you handle plateaus. I go through periods where I scale back and increase my activity. My body adapts.
I still think you're looking in the wrong places for answers.
I think this probaly is the wrong place (IF forum probably better). I don't dissagree with any methods or discussion you just propossed. I do find the resistance by many to consider what I'm saying interesting though. Why? I believe in CICO, I think there are variables that effect it. Why can't that be discussed. People have jumped to all sorts of conclusions like pigging out, cico doesn’t matter, etc. People are very closed minded here in my opinion and have insinuated lots that was never said or meant. Am I damaging this forum or something? Why can't people have a civil discussion instead of being so dismissive and insinuating so much? Just have a discussion for heaven's sake and be respectful of different opinions. If you don't agree, state why and don't just be dismissive. Site some evidence or something and don't mock and ridicule. I'm sure there are a lot of very smart people here, so have a discussion please.
This was meant for this thread and not you PeachyCarol.
It's not that we're resistant to discussing these issues, blambo.
It's that in the end, what you're suggesting are things that don't make huge differences and will ultimately come down to personal preference for individual dieters.
I simply don't think what you're suggesting is helpful to a large number of people.
Again, that is your opinion without sources. I respect your opinion but I reserve the right to disagree.That is my exact question you posed. I don't know the answer. I think eating the same cals in a shorter window is probably better just as a hunch and also knowing all physicsl processes are rate and saturation limited. If that makes a differrnce or not, I don't know. There might be other effects also. I will keep looking and if I find something I will post more. Thanks.
This meta-review of 40 different studies says otherwise: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26384657
In the Summary (emphasis added):Intermittent fasting thus represents a valid - albeit apparently not superior - option to continuous energy restriction for weight loss.
I read the abstract. It puts forth the assertion that breaking a fast intermittently (IF) may keep the body from adapting to fasting (keep the metabolism from slowing down) as compared to long term fasting (continuous fasting). The sentence before your quote said the studies were not set up to figure it out and then strangely makes the conclusion that it didn't help (IF vs continuous fasting).
Apparently the articles didn't even compare IF vs many small meals! This didn't even touch on the topic being discussed! At least that is the way I read it.
@blambo61 In hindsight, I realized that a link I posted was similar to the one you are commenting on that AnvilHead posted. Both are essentially just brief analysis of previous studies, and don't provide the specifics of the studies cited, unless they are in a more complete version somewhere. But his link was an overview of more studies, as well as more recent than the link I provided.
I do have some studies on meal frequency stuff, including some on IF methods. Some compare 3 vs 6 meals, some are 3 vs IF practices, etc. I don't know if I have any that compare IF to very frequent (6 or so) meals. If you want them I'll gladly provide them.
But overall I do agree with the summary of what the study AnvilHead linked states. There is some evidence of some very small changes, with certain health and weight loss factors leaning toward or against the practice of IF. Certain health markers often sway against IF, but might only apply to certain individuals. And certain metabolic changes apply to IF depending on what type of IF is used. Once again, I don't think there is sufficient evidence to state that metabolic changes are always positive assuming IF would aid in weight loss.
But though I would like to see someone figure out the entire complex model of weight changes, I think the more daunting task for a person with a strong math background would be finding enough science based studies to agree even remotely on the biology and physiology aspects of the mathematical model that would follow. Even if you took a small portion of the model, some of those small portions are highly disputed and controversial . Absorbing protein and the efficiency and speed of that process for example, seem to be in a state of constant dispute even among the science community.
And I'd also caution anyone that what is accepted today by the science community might be rejected tomorrow. Even science constantly evolves in many areas, and as such it might be easy to find a peer reviewed study that suits a point of view, or conflicts with it. It all depends on which peer based reviews you pick and choose. I recently found a protocol for high intensity workouts that at one period of time was, and to many still is, widely accepted. And yet as someone with little background at all in science, due to a greater information base in things not of the same science, found gaping holes in the testing methods used. I can only assume that the original peer reviews were by other specialists in the field of study, and as such less aware of the science of the measurements and flaws involved in their findings.
So even finding a peer reviewed and currently accepted study is really for me, not "proof" of having the right answers. It's more finding "proof" that it might be right.
And keep in mind that I say that having as much desire as you probably do in having more complete answers. I think the more we understand the better equipped we are. But I don't even know if it could be done today, not even in a lab controlled environment. It might open our eyes to more complexities than are currently accepted. As it stands today the comparison to a human machine, well I don't think any machine man has made is nearly as complex as us or most living animals. I can't even think of anything close within a subsystem.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Satiety matters to those that have issues with it.
Of course, as EVERYONE has said. Absolutely no one claims that concerns about satiety are majoring in the minors. But OP started this thread to talk about his theory that you can deal with satiety by tricking your body into taking in far more calories without absorbing them, through meal timing. That's what was objected to, because even if it were true it wouldn't work if someone didn't enjoy eating 4000 calories once a day or 5000 calories once every two days, which is what he seemed to be talking about (bringing up competitive eaters and gorging and all that).
I also said, early on, that of course for some people IFing might be a good strategy for satisfaction reasons and same with keto or mini meals, etc. My only argument with that stuff is when people claim it is the best way for everyone. What people find satiating varies.
Yes, OP shifted his IF argument to psychological reasons later (after I'd and others had said those were important things to consider) and I've not had any argument with him as to whether IF may be helpful for such reasons for him. What I've said is that it is unlikely that any "trick" one can come up with to eat more calories without gaining weight will have a significant enough effect to outweigh other factors -- again, there is a TEF effect if you eat relatively more protein, but for that to be significant you'd have to eat levels of protein that some might find unsatisfying or even too costly or unhealthy. So focusing just on TEF when making food choices doesn't make much sense.
Remember the initial claim here was that you could find a way to eat more calories (significantly more) and that failing to do so would mean that someone dieting was eating too few calories (not simply in a less satiating way) to be satisfied. I think assuming that the quest should be finding a way to eat more calories without being more active, in other words, something akin to those drugs that prevent food from being absorbed, is not really a healthy approach.Though I consider it, I consider it in relation to my eating style (meal timing, size, etc). If doing that is "majoring in the minors" then everyone that considers satiety at all as a factor and takes it into consideration is doing so.
Again, no one said taking satiety into account is majoring in the minors, and I think most of us do this.0 -
many to consider what I'm saying interestinglemurcat12 wrote: »This seems off-topic. Many of us have pointed out that there are numerous individual reasons why a particular eating style will work for one person vs. another, and that has to do with what feels satisfying, and is why IF can be a really good strategy independent of whether there's much of a difference in how many calories one can eat. But OP keeps saying that he is interested in maximizing the number of calories one can eat.
This is where you confuse me at times. You openly state " Many of us have pointed out", but consider my input off topic? I posted actual peer review studies on IF, mentioned the satiety and other factors, and as such added no input that others didn't do as well. It was either all relevant, or none of it was. And being that the OP did move the goal posts some, I thought it was all relevant. If the OP had stated he didn't want to discuss IF or those topics, I wouldn't have provided the info.
I try to stay on track with the OPs intentions, regardless of who it is. If it's your thread and you don't want to discuss fasting, I'd keep my comments from fasting.
Many of us have said to OP that eating decisions should prioritize satiety and satisfaction factors vs how many calories one can take in, if there are minor differences, as those differences are going to be so small as to not matter. It's why arguments about meal timing, etc., are majoring in the minors. I totally agree -- as does everyone -- that satiety is an issue, but OP made it clear in response that he is focusing on this (false) idea that one can eat way more calories, or trick the system, if you find a way to do it. So talking about satiety reasons to do IF (while IMPO those are the reasons to do IF) are off the topic as defined by OP.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is interesting -- do you have a link? I'd love to read it.
Here is one that is similar, if I find the one that includes the short term overweight vs the long term overweight I'll post it.
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0104552
Thanks, I'll check it out.lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't see people as saying that psychological issues and feelings don't matter. But people need to figure out how to deal with those issues, of course, and IMO trying to find a trick so that one can keep overeating (in terms of # of calories) specifically does NOT help with that struggle.
In the same intention as the above, I brought it up as a "shoe fits" statement due to the people on this thread making clear that the OPs desires and feelings were invalid, and interjecting feelings in attempts to sway his desires. Personally to me, all feelings on issues matter, as we are all somewhat driven by personal feelings, conscious of it or not. And in this thread, some of the same people interjecting the OPs feelings while interjecting their own are some of the ones that often claim "dem feelz" have no place in a discussion.
OP wasn't talking about psychological issues or even acknowledging them. He was saying someone might need to eat super low calories to lose (not true) and could change that by doing some other eating style -- tricking the system to allowing more calories, specifically the idea one could gorge in a narrow time window.But I should also comment that I see your comment about finding a trick to avoid overeating while valid, has no application to the OP as he has never stated any such issue.
See above. That's the trick -- it's not to avoid overeating, but is, as I said, to permit overeating. He also claimed that limiting yourself to one plate was deprivation.[/quote]
Being too lazy to multi quote every section here.
But if you want to do an analysis on the thread relevance, I'll gladly admit I'm wrong if the majority are discussing the OPs desires rather than oppose them. Please include a factor of the "don't care, insert gif, mock" that got cleaned up early on.
As for my comments, I'm quite certain that I knew the intentions far better than anyone assuming they did.
Satiety matters to those that have issues with it. Though I consider it, I consider it in relation to my eating style (meal timing, size, etc). If doing that is "majoring in the minors" then everyone that considers satiety at all as a factor and takes it into consideration is doing so.
The OP addressed the mental and psychology issues on page 3 of the thread in response to another poster bringing them up. That is fact. So unless you can view yourself as being as humanly error prone as the rest of us, you're simply proving a point that you can ignore certain facts.
I won't make any attempt to speak for the OP, but if he was looking for tricks to overeat, the fact that he is losing faster than expected gave him every opportunity to do that and still lose weight. I viewed his comments and quests as looking for answers, not "tricks" as you label them. But I'm confident that only he can answer that question, not me, you or someone else that would just be guessing.PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Am I the only one who finds the thought of trying to manipulate your digestive process so that you overwhelm it with food during a short duration to the point that it cannot absorb all of the nutrients and calories from your food a bit disturbing?
No, I do too, and being able to eat more calories in an unpleasant-sounding way doesn't seem that beneficial, even if possible (same with the idea that if you eat mainly protein you can eat more calories).
It also reminds me of the efforts to alter rice so you absorb fewer of the calories. I think most people are better off learning to eat an appropriate amount of food.
To each his own. I grew up practically force feeding myself trying to gain weight. I like to eat tell full. Eating small meals and never filling up SUCKS! Eating tell full isn't unpleasant. I don't gorge myself. As a matter of fact my stomach has shrunk so much on this diet that I can only eat about one plate of food at a time now.
You have missed the point!
I just read some leangains info where the author talks in a bunch of physiological terms about how fasting helps with weight loss. I'm goi going to read more on this subject (fasting).
Most of you people are thinking about what is going on in the body in a static sense (what has happened at the end of the day). You need to look at it in a dynamic sense (what is happening at each instant of time). The static model misses a lot of what is going on for things that are important (rate limits, saturation limits, and other non-linearities). Your way of thinking would allow two ladies to have a baby in 4.5 months.
No one here is looking at this in a static way, though. You're the one presuming that.
I'm frankly disturbed, as blankiefinder mentioned, by your approach here.
Let's back up for a minute though.
You introducing the topic of a dynamic model is nothing new to people who've been around the forums a long time. We all know the effects of ongoing weight loss and changing body composition plus length of time spent dieting on not only metabolism but the rate at which the weight drops.
Evgeni, a long time ago, had an excellent thread on the subject of adaptive thermogenesis.
I've been eating at deficit for a year now. My system had adapted to lower caloric intake. I'm doing a diet break right now, eating at maintenance (which for me, a 53 year old woman who is considerably shorter than you is about what you're eating to lose) for a month. My system hormones will reset and I'll go back to eating at deficit.
This is how you handle plateaus. I go through periods where I scale back and increase my activity. My body adapts.
I still think you're looking in the wrong places for answers.
I think this probaly is the wrong place (IF forum probably better). I don't dissagree with any methods or discussion you just propossed. I do find the resistance by many to consider what I'm saying interesting though. Why? I believe in CICO, I think there are variables that effect it. Why can't that be discussed. People have jumped to all sorts of conclusions like pigging out, cico doesn’t matter, etc. People are very closed minded here in my opinion and have insinuated lots that was never said or meant. Am I damaging this forum or something? Why can't people have a civil discussion instead of being so dismissive and insinuating so much? Just have a discussion for heaven's sake and be respectful of different opinions. If you don't agree, state why and don't just be dismissive. Site some evidence or something and don't mock and ridicule. I'm sure there are a lot of very smart people here, so have a discussion please.
This was meant for this thread and not you PeachyCarol.
It's not that we're resistant to discussing these issues, blambo.
It's that in the end, what you're suggesting are things that don't make huge differences and will ultimately come down to personal preference for individual dieters.
I simply don't think what you're suggesting is helpful to a large number of people.
Again, that is your opinion without sources. I respect your opinion but I reserve the right to disagree.That is my exact question you posed. I don't know the answer. I think eating the same cals in a shorter window is probably better just as a hunch and also knowing all physicsl processes are rate and saturation limited. If that makes a differrnce or not, I don't know. There might be other effects also. I will keep looking and if I find something I will post more. Thanks.
This meta-review of 40 different studies says otherwise: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26384657
In the Summary (emphasis added):Intermittent fasting thus represents a valid - albeit apparently not superior - option to continuous energy restriction f or weight loss.
I read the abstract. It puts forth the assertion that breaking a fast intermittently (IF) may keep the body from adapting to fasting (keep the metabolism from slowing down) as compared to long term fasting (continuous fasting). The sentence before your quote said the studies were not set up to figure it out and then strangely makes the conclusion that it didn't help (IF vs continuous fasting).
Apparently the articles didn't even compare IF vs many small meals! This didn't even touch on the topic being discussed! At least that is the way I read it.
@blambo61 In hindsight, I realized that a link I posted was similar to the one you are commenting on that AnvilHead posted. Both are essentially just brief analysis of previous studies, and don't provide the specifics of the studies cited, unless they are in a more complete version somewhere. But his link was an overview of more studies, as well as more recent than the link I provided.
I do have some studies on meal frequency stuff, including some on IF methods. Some compare 3 vs 6 meals, some are 3 vs IF practices, etc. I don't know if I have any that compare IF to very frequent (6 or so) meals. If you want them I'll gladly provide them.
But overall I do agree with the summary of what the study AnvilHead linked states. There is some evidence of some very small changes, with certain health and weight loss factors leaning toward or against the practice of IF. Certain health markers often sway against IF, but might only apply to certain individuals. And certain metabolic changes apply to IF depending on what type of IF is used. Once again, I don't think there is sufficient evidence to state that metabolic changes are always positive assuming IF would aid in weight loss.
But though I would like to see someone figure out the entire complex model of weight changes, I think the more daunting task for a person with a strong math background would be finding enough science based studies to agree even remotely on the biology and physiology aspects of the mathematical model that would follow. Even if you took a small portion of the model, some of those small portions are highly disputed and controversial . Absorbing protein and the efficiency and speed of that process for example, seem to be in a state of constant dispute even among the science community.
And I'd also caution anyone that what is accepted today by the science community might be rejected tomorrow. Even science constantly evolves in many areas, and as such it might be easy to find a peer reviewed study that suits a point of view, or conflicts with it. It all depends on which peer based reviews you pick and choose. I recently found a protocol for high intensity workouts that at one period of time was, and to many still is, widely accepted. And yet as someone with little background at all in science, due to a greater information base in things not of the same science, found gaping holes in the testing methods used. I can only assume that the original peer reviews were by other specialists in the field of study, and as such less aware of the science of the measurements and flaws involved in their findings.
So even finding a peer reviewed and currently accepted study is really for me, not "proof" of having the right answers. It's more finding "proof" that it might be right.
And keep in mind that I say that having as much desire as you probably do in having more complete answers. I think the more we understand the better equipped we are. But I don't even know if it could be done today, not even in a lab controlled environment. It might open our eyes to more complexities than are currently accepted. As it stands today the comparison to a human machine, well I don't think any machine man has made is nearly as complex as us or most living animals. I can't even think of anything close within a subsystem. [/quote]0 -
http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/
The article slams CICO. It says CICO doesn't account for thermal and excretion losses.
I think a person should do CICO, but could also experiment with other things to see if it helps more than what the cal deficit says will happen. This is what I have stated over and over and not what a lot have insinuated.
You post here to complain that people here aren't being thoughtful enough and even include some patronizing comments assuming that most here just can't understand mathematics. In turn, you were provided (more than once) with links to the studies and researchers currently regarded as the best in the world when it comes to exploring models for approximating CICO.
You've never addressed any of the points brought up in those articles, and persist in either misunderstanding or mis-stating what's being conveyed here about what CICO is (and isn't). Instead, you respond with a blog article that "slams CICO" that's filled with typos and inaccuracies, written by some guy based on personal opinions coming from who-knows-what.
You conclude by trying to reference "antedotal" (do you mean anecdotal?) evidence.
Honestly, I've gotten to the point where I think you're just trolling, and I'm sure your thread will continue to generate responses, because that's what trolling creates. But I think it's a shame, because these boards deserve better - especially related to a topic as potentially interesting and challenging as talking about some of the elements that influence CICO. Have fun trolling, I guess. Hopefully those who actually want a conversation about the topic can find it elsewhere.
0 -
This is a horrible article.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
This is a horrible article.
Why?0 -
http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/
The article slams CICO. It says CICO doesn't account for thermal and excretion losses.
I think a person should do CICO, but could also experiment with other things to see if it helps more than what the cal deficit says will happen. This is what I have stated over and over and not what a lot have insinuated.
You post here to complain that people here aren't being thoughtful enough and even include some patronizing comments assuming that most here just can't understand mathematics. In turn, you were provided (more than once) with links to the studies and researchers currently regarded as the best in the world when it comes to exploring models for approximating CICO.
You've never addressed any of the points brought up in those articles, and persist in either misunderstanding or mis-stating what's being conveyed here about what CICO is (and isn't). Instead, you respond with a blog article that "slams CICO" that's filled with typos and inaccuracies, written by some guy based on personal opinions coming from who-knows-what.
You conclude by trying to reference "antedotal" (do you mean anecdotal?) evidence.
Honestly, I've gotten to the point where I think you're just trolling, and I'm sure your thread will continue to generate responses, because that's what trolling creates. But I think it's a shame, because these boards deserve better - especially related to a topic as potentially interesting and challenging as talking about some of the elements that influence CICO. Have fun trolling, I guess. Hopefully those who actually want a conversation about the topic can find it elsewhere.
I think the boards deserve better than your response. I provided a link to an interesting article about how fat flux works. Why don't you discuss what is wrong with the article if you think it is wrong instead of being dismissive so that an actual conversation can take place. I left commenting here a long time ago because of people being dismissive, calling names and such and not wanting to have a reasonable discussion. I've gone out and learned more and think the author has some very good info (he is an md, surgeon, has an engineering background, does bio research, and is an extreme endurance athlete). How about telling me what you don't like instead of just being dismissive. I'm willing to hear what you have to say. I do think a lot of people are wrong in their assumptions and my motives are to provide information to help others learn and also to hear counter points. I don't appreciate your slamming of my motives. I don't plan on spending a lot of time here since I don't have a lot right now but just wanted to provide info that might help others. This article doesn't slam CICO by the way, it just points out what I've been saying that there is a lot more to what effects CICO and that excretion has to be taken into account also.0 -
No references except to himself or some articles, no studies as far as I've seen, a lot of "it is my belief..."s, then this thing:They are not giving up fat from their fat cells because they are eating less. They are eating less because they are giving up fat from their fat cells. Big difference.
Which is just a huge "wat?"
Really the only thing that is of any worth is his ability of doing primary school math and knowing that if less fat gets put in fat cells than is taken out, you lose net fat.0 -
-
jennifer_417 wrote: »Adding a bunch of minute complications to something that already works might be a good way to discourage a whole lot of people.
The beauty of CICO is in its simplicity and accessibility.
THIS!!!^^0 -
http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/
The article slams CICO. It says CICO doesn't account for thermal and excretion losses.
I think a person should do CICO, but could also experiment with other things to see if it helps more than what the cal deficit says will happen. This is what I have stated over and over and not what a lot have insinuated.
You post here to complain that people here aren't being thoughtful enough and even include some patronizing comments assuming that most here just can't understand mathematics. In turn, you were provided (more than once) with links to the studies and researchers currently regarded as the best in the world when it comes to exploring models for approximating CICO.
You've never addressed any of the points brought up in those articles, and persist in either misunderstanding or mis-stating what's being conveyed here about what CICO is (and isn't). Instead, you respond with a blog article that "slams CICO" that's filled with typos and inaccuracies, written by some guy based on personal opinions coming from who-knows-what.
You conclude by trying to reference "antedotal" (do you mean anecdotal?) evidence.
Honestly, I've gotten to the point where I think you're just trolling, and I'm sure your thread will continue to generate responses, because that's what trolling creates. But I think it's a shame, because these boards deserve better - especially related to a topic as potentially interesting and challenging as talking about some of the elements that influence CICO. Have fun trolling, I guess. Hopefully those who actually want a conversation about the topic can find it elsewhere.
I think the boards deserve better than your response. I provided a link to an interesting article about how fat flux works. Why don't you discuss what is wrong with the article if you think it is wrong instead of being dismissive so that an actual conversation can take place. I left commenting here a long time ago because of people being dismissive, calling names and such and not wanting to have a reasonable discussion. I've gone out and learned more and think the author has some very good info (he is an md, surgeon, has an engineering background, does bio research, and is an extreme endurance athlete). How about telling me what you don't like instead of just being dismissive. I'm willing to hear what you have to say. I do think a lot of people are wrong in their assumptions and my motives are to provide information to help others learn and also to hear counter points. I don't appreciate your slamming of my motives. I don't plan on spending a lot of time here since I don't have a lot right now but just wanted to provide info that might help others. This article doesn't slam CICO by the way, it just points out what I've been saying that there is a lot more to what effects CICO and that excretion has to be taken into account also.
As an engineer, let me just say I despise when people use their qualifications in one field as any sort of mark as to whether they know anything in another field. Dr. Oz is a cardiologist, right? Doctors can still have personal biases/be wrong about plenty of things, sometimes even their primary field but often about fields they didn't study and don't read the literature on.
The author cites no research that proves his theory. The only research he cites are relevant to how to measure things, which makes it seem like he's citing publically reviewed journals to prove his point, but really he's just throwing them in though they in no way prove or disprove his thesis. I did a LOT of searching in publically reviewed journals to see if there was any evidence a keto diet at the same amount of calories was really shown to be any 'better' than a non-keto diet at that calorie level. I was not able to find anything. There is some research showing keto might be helpful for diabetics in managing diabetes and for kids with epilepsy. But nothing that shows superior weight loss.
So his article is poorly written because there is no research to support his claim. A bunch of 'facts' do not constitute a solid and provable hypothesis.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »No references except to himself or some articles, no studies as far as I've seen, a lot of "it is my belief..."s, then this thing:They are not giving up fat from their fat cells because they are eating less. They are eating less because they are giving up fat from their fat cells. Big difference.
Which is just a huge "wat?"
Really the only thing that is of any worth is his ability of doing primary school math and knowing that if less fat gets put in fat cells than is taken out, you lose net fat.
Lots of things effect how much is put in and how much is taken out. It is much more complicated than elementary math.0 -
One of his points is that starvation diets are hard to sustain. When people get off the diet, it does matter what type of cals you eat. High glycemic (spelling?) food causes insulin spikes which is necessary for storing fat. Insulin also shuts off the hormones that make it possible to burn fat. Not all calories are the same. Because of this, people get fat again. I bet a large portion of the people at mfp have lost and gained at least once or more.0 -
blues4miles wrote: »http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/
The article slams CICO. It says CICO doesn't account for thermal and excretion losses.
I think a person should do CICO, but could also experiment with other things to see if it helps more than what the cal deficit says will happen. This is what I have stated over and over and not what a lot have insinuated.
You post here to complain that people here aren't being thoughtful enough and even include some patronizing comments assuming that most here just can't understand mathematics. In turn, you were provided (more than once) with links to the studies and researchers currently regarded as the best in the world when it comes to exploring models for approximating CICO.
You've never addressed any of the points brought up in those articles, and persist in either misunderstanding or mis-stating what's being conveyed here about what CICO is (and isn't). Instead, you respond with a blog article that "slams CICO" that's filled with typos and inaccuracies, written by some guy based on personal opinions coming from who-knows-what.
You conclude by trying to reference "antedotal" (do you mean anecdotal?) evidence.
Honestly, I've gotten to the point where I think you're just trolling, and I'm sure your thread will continue to generate responses, because that's what trolling creates. But I think it's a shame, because these boards deserve better - especially related to a topic as potentially interesting and challenging as talking about some of the elements that influence CICO. Have fun trolling, I guess. Hopefully those who actually want a conversation about the topic can find it elsewhere.
I think the boards deserve better than your response. I provided a link to an interesting article about how fat flux works. Why don't you discuss what is wrong with the article if you think it is wrong instead of being dismissive so that an actual conversation can take place. I left commenting here a long time ago because of people being dismissive, calling names and such and not wanting to have a reasonable discussion. I've gone out and learned more and think the author has some very good info (he is an md, surgeon, has an engineering background, does bio research, and is an extreme endurance athlete). How about telling me what you don't like instead of just being dismissive. I'm willing to hear what you have to say. I do think a lot of people are wrong in their assumptions and my motives are to provide information to help others learn and also to hear counter points. I don't appreciate your slamming of my motives. I don't plan on spending a lot of time here since I don't have a lot right now but just wanted to provide info that might help others. This article doesn't slam CICO by the way, it just points out what I've been saying that there is a lot more to what effects CICO and that excretion has to be taken into account also.
As an engineer, let me just say I despise when people use their qualifications in one field as any sort of mark as to whether they know anything in another field. Dr. Oz is a cardiologist, right? Doctors can still have personal biases/be wrong about plenty of things, sometimes even their primary field but often about fields they didn't study and don't read the literature on.
The author cites no research that proves his theory. The only research he cites are relevant to how to measure things, which makes it seem like he's citing publically reviewed journals to prove his point, but really he's just throwing them in though they in no way prove or disprove his thesis. I did a LOT of searching in publically reviewed journals to see if there was any evidence a keto diet at the same amount of calories was really shown to be any 'better' than a non-keto diet at that calorie level. I was not able to find anything. There is some research showing keto might be helpful for diabetics in managing diabetes and for kids with epilepsy. But nothing that shows superior weight loss.
So his article is poorly written because there is no research to support his claim. A bunch of 'facts' do not constitute a solid and provable hypothesis.
He states that this particular article as not being "rigorous" if I remember right. If you look at other articles, he does reference many scholarly articles. He also is an employee of a company called NUSI that does research in the area of metabolic syndrome so he is actively involved in the topic and produces articles on the topic we are discussing and the topic he was writing about and is paid to do it. He isn't an outsider in the field and far from it. Look at other stuff in his blog. I think it is established science that insulin is needed to store fat and that it shuts off the ability to release fat. If that is true then high glycemic type calories are going to put more weight on you than non-high glycemic cals and also make it harder to get rid of fat. Read more of his stuff.0 -
blues4miles wrote: »http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/
The article slams CICO. It says CICO doesn't account for thermal and excretion losses.
I think a person should do CICO, but could also experiment with other things to see if it helps more than what the cal deficit says will happen. This is what I have stated over and over and not what a lot have insinuated.
You post here to complain that people here aren't being thoughtful enough and even include some patronizing comments assuming that most here just can't understand mathematics. In turn, you were provided (more than once) with links to the studies and researchers currently regarded as the best in the world when it comes to exploring models for approximating CICO.
You've never addressed any of the points brought up in those articles, and persist in either misunderstanding or mis-stating what's being conveyed here about what CICO is (and isn't). Instead, you respond with a blog article that "slams CICO" that's filled with typos and inaccuracies, written by some guy based on personal opinions coming from who-knows-what.
You conclude by trying to reference "antedotal" (do you mean anecdotal?) evidence.
Honestly, I've gotten to the point where I think you're just trolling, and I'm sure your thread will continue to generate responses, because that's what trolling creates. But I think it's a shame, because these boards deserve better - especially related to a topic as potentially interesting and challenging as talking about some of the elements that influence CICO. Have fun trolling, I guess. Hopefully those who actually want a conversation about the topic can find it elsewhere.
I think the boards deserve better than your response. I provided a link to an interesting article about how fat flux works. Why don't you discuss what is wrong with the article if you think it is wrong instead of being dismissive so that an actual conversation can take place. I left commenting here a long time ago because of people being dismissive, calling names and such and not wanting to have a reasonable discussion. I've gone out and learned more and think the author has some very good info (he is an md, surgeon, has an engineering background, does bio research, and is an extreme endurance athlete). How about telling me what you don't like instead of just being dismissive. I'm willing to hear what you have to say. I do think a lot of people are wrong in their assumptions and my motives are to provide information to help others learn and also to hear counter points. I don't appreciate your slamming of my motives. I don't plan on spending a lot of time here since I don't have a lot right now but just wanted to provide info that might help others. This article doesn't slam CICO by the way, it just points out what I've been saying that there is a lot more to what effects CICO and that excretion has to be taken into account also.
As an engineer, let me just say I despise when people use their qualifications in one field as any sort of mark as to whether they know anything in another field. Dr. Oz is a cardiologist, right? Doctors can still have personal biases/be wrong about plenty of things, sometimes even their primary field but often about fields they didn't study and don't read the literature on.
The author cites no research that proves his theory. The only research he cites are relevant to how to measure things, which makes it seem like he's citing publically reviewed journals to prove his point, but really he's just throwing them in though they in no way prove or disprove his thesis. I did a LOT of searching in publically reviewed journals to see if there was any evidence a keto diet at the same amount of calories was really shown to be any 'better' than a non-keto diet at that calorie level. I was not able to find anything. There is some research showing keto might be helpful for diabetics in managing diabetes and for kids with epilepsy. But nothing that shows superior weight loss.
So his article is poorly written because there is no research to support his claim. A bunch of 'facts' do not constitute a solid and provable hypothesis.
Research review for you: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html0 -
http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/
The article slams CICO. It says CICO doesn't account for thermal and excretion losses.
I think a person should do CICO, but could also experiment with other things to see if it helps more than what the cal deficit says will happen. This is what I have stated over and over and not what a lot have insinuated.
You post here to complain that people here aren't being thoughtful enough and even include some patronizing comments assuming that most here just can't understand mathematics. In turn, you were provided (more than once) with links to the studies and researchers currently regarded as the best in the world when it comes to exploring models for approximating CICO.
You've never addressed any of the points brought up in those articles, and persist in either misunderstanding or mis-stating what's being conveyed here about what CICO is (and isn't). Instead, you respond with a blog article that "slams CICO" that's filled with typos and inaccuracies, written by some guy based on personal opinions coming from who-knows-what.
You conclude by trying to reference "antedotal" (do you mean anecdotal?) evidence.
Honestly, I've gotten to the point where I think you're just trolling, and I'm sure your thread will continue to generate responses, because that's what trolling creates. But I think it's a shame, because these boards deserve better - especially related to a topic as potentially interesting and challenging as talking about some of the elements that influence CICO. Have fun trolling, I guess. Hopefully those who actually want a conversation about the topic can find it elsewhere.
I think the boards deserve better than your response. I provided a link to an interesting article about how fat flux works. Why don't you discuss what is wrong with the article if you think it is wrong instead of being dismissive so that an actual conversation can take place. I left commenting here a long time ago because of people being dismissive, calling names and such and not wanting to have a reasonable discussion. I've gone out and learned more and think the author has some very good info (he is an md, surgeon, has an engineering background, does bio research, and is an extreme endurance athlete). How about telling me what you don't like instead of just being dismissive. I'm willing to hear what you have to say. I do think a lot of people are wrong in their assumptions and my motives are to provide information to help others learn and also to hear counter points. I don't appreciate your slamming of my motives. I don't plan on spending a lot of time here since I don't have a lot right now but just wanted to provide info that might help others. This article doesn't slam CICO by the way, it just points out what I've been saying that there is a lot more to what effects CICO and that excretion has to be taken into account also.
I think the boards deserve better than your resurrecting this nonsensical thread and your links to spurious studies you don't understand
Hence why Caitwn's seminal post was worth repeating
And is againhttp://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/
The article slams CICO. It says CICO doesn't account for thermal and excretion losses.
I think a person should do CICO, but could also experiment with other things to see if it helps more than what the cal deficit says will happen. This is what I have stated over and over and not what a lot have insinuated.
You post here to complain that people here aren't being thoughtful enough and even include some patronizing comments assuming that most here just can't understand mathematics. In turn, you were provided (more than once) with links to the studies and researchers currently regarded as the best in the world when it comes to exploring models for approximating CICO.
You've never addressed any of the points brought up in those articles, and persist in either misunderstanding or mis-stating what's being conveyed here about what CICO is (and isn't). Instead, you respond with a blog article that "slams CICO" that's filled with typos and inaccuracies, written by some guy based on personal opinions coming from who-knows-what.
You conclude by trying to reference "antedotal" (do you mean anecdotal?) evidence.
Honestly, I've gotten to the point where I think you're just trolling, and I'm sure your thread will continue to generate responses, because that's what trolling creates. But I think it's a shame, because these boards deserve better - especially related to a topic as potentially interesting and challenging as talking about some of the elements that influence CICO. Have fun trolling, I guess. Hopefully those who actually want a conversation about the topic can find it elsewhere.
ps I very much miss Caitwn's knowledge and experience, amongst others
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions