CICO
Replies
-
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.
Insulin spikes are not necessary for storing fat.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.
Your body can still store fat even when insulin is low. You might want to research acylation stimulating protein (ASP) which suppresses Hormone Sensitive Lipase (HSL), which is your fat burning enzyme. The body is very adapted and has the ability to store fat NO MATTER WHAT.
0 -
Your body can still store fat even when insulin is low. You might want to research acylation stimulating protein (ASP)
to add further mud to the water "Acylation stimulating protein stimulates insulin secretion." (at least in mice) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/129177080 -
Looks like the body can store fat with low insulin but probably stores much faster with high insulin. Also lipase is inhibited with high insulin and you will burn fat slower with high insulin. I think that sets the body off on a glycemic roller coaster sinse the high insulin will drop the blood sugar and inhibit energy from fat so you get real hungry and want to eat again or feel real miserable.0
-
Looks like the body can store fat with low insulin but probably stores much faster with high insulin. Also lipase is inhibited with high insulin and you will burn fat slower with high insulin. I think that sets the body off on a glycemic roller coaster sinse the high insulin will drop the blood sugar and inhibit energy from fat so you get real hungry and want to eat again or feel real miserable.
For the majority of us, it really doesn't matter as we can regulate insulin fairly easy. And your body will have cycles between lipogenesis and lipolysis. And that is why it doesn't matter if you are low fat or low carb, if you are in an energy deficit, you will lose fat. GL and GI, have little to NO impact on weight loss.
The bold is merely your assumption. I can eat high carbs and feel full for hours (love me some bake potatoes). But give me fat and I am starving immediately.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.html
I will look at this thanks. By the way I'm not sold on the no carb keto diets, I think they may be harmful on kidneys long term and might cause me to have gout, and might result in nutritional deficiencies.0 -
Looks like the body can store fat with low insulin but probably stores much faster with high insulin. Also lipase is inhibited with high insulin and you will burn fat slower with high insulin. I think that sets the body off on a glycemic roller coaster sinse the high insulin will drop the blood sugar and inhibit energy from fat so you get real hungry and want to eat again or feel real miserable.
For the majority of us, it really doesn't matter as we can regulate insulin fairly easy. And your body will have cycles between lipogenesis and lipolysis. And that is why it doesn't matter if you are low fat or low carb, if you are in an energy deficit, you will lose fat. GL and GI, have little to NO impact on weight loss.
The bold is merely your assumption. I can eat high carbs and feel full for hours (love me some bake potatoes). But give me fat and I am starving immediately.
I'm the opposite and if eat sugar stuff, I'm starving later. If in cal deficit, the cals will come from somewhere and it seems to me that if fat can't be accessed readily, then your going to get hungry tell insulin drops and fat burning gets going again or you eat more.0 -
Looks like the body can store fat with low insulin but probably stores much faster with high insulin. Also lipase is inhibited with high insulin and you will burn fat slower with high insulin. I think that sets the body off on a glycemic roller coaster sinse the high insulin will drop the blood sugar and inhibit energy from fat so you get real hungry and want to eat again or feel real miserable.
For the majority of us, it really doesn't matter as we can regulate insulin fairly easy. And your body will have cycles between lipogenesis and lipolysis. And that is why it doesn't matter if you are low fat or low carb, if you are in an energy deficit, you will lose fat. GL and GI, have little to NO impact on weight loss.
The bold is merely your assumption. I can eat high carbs and feel full for hours (love me some bake potatoes). But give me fat and I am starving immediately.
I'm the opposite and if eat sugar stuff, I'm starving later. If in cal deficit, the cals will come from somewhere and it seems to me that if fat can't be accessed readily, then your going to get hungry tell insulin drops and fat burning gets going again or you eat more.
When people mention sugary stuff, I generally say they are doing it wrong. And when I mention low to moderate fat, I am not talking about a diet high in ultra processed foods. I am talking highly nutritious foods; veggies, fruits, whole grains (especially high fiber) and dairy (most of mine comes from Greek yogurt).
One of the biggest issues we have when comparing diets is the lack of equally nutritious foods. Comparing highly processed, low nutrient, low satiety foods, to a low carb or very low fat diet would be disingenuous as you are altering a ton of variables, especially quality/satiety/volume of food.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.html
Thanks I will check it out. I read anything by Lyle McDonald, man knows his stuff. Hadn't poked around there lately but glad he is looking at the whole keto fad.0 -
Looks like the body can store fat with low insulin but probably stores much faster with high insulin. Also lipase is inhibited with high insulin and you will burn fat slower with high insulin. I think that sets the body off on a glycemic roller coaster sinse the high insulin will drop the blood sugar and inhibit energy from fat so you get real hungry and want to eat again or feel real miserable.
For the majority of us, it really doesn't matter as we can regulate insulin fairly easy. And your body will have cycles between lipogenesis and lipolysis. And that is why it doesn't matter if you are low fat or low carb, if you are in an energy deficit, you will lose fat. GL and GI, have little to NO impact on weight loss.
The bold is merely your assumption. I can eat high carbs and feel full for hours (love me some bake potatoes). But give me fat and I am starving immediately.
I'm the opposite and if eat sugar stuff, I'm starving later. If in cal deficit, the cals will come from somewhere and it seems to me that if fat can't be accessed readily, then your going to get hungry tell insulin drops and fat burning gets going again or you eat more.
When people mention sugary stuff, I generally say they are doing it wrong. And when I mention low to moderate fat, I am not talking about a diet high in ultra processed foods. I am talking highly nutritious foods; veggies, fruits, whole grains (especially high fiber) and dairy (most of mine comes from Greek yogurt).
One of the biggest issues we have when comparing diets is the lack of equally nutritious foods. Comparing highly processed, low nutrient, low satiety foods, to a low carb or very low fat diet would be disingenuous as you are altering a ton of variables, especially quality/satiety/volume of food.
You just confirmed that a cal is not a cal it seems like. That is my point.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.
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
The subject isn't nonsensical. It is a research area. Your comment again is dismissive and does not provide any input.0 -
Looks like the body can store fat with low insulin but probably stores much faster with high insulin. Also lipase is inhibited with high insulin and you will burn fat slower with high insulin. I think that sets the body off on a glycemic roller coaster sinse the high insulin will drop the blood sugar and inhibit energy from fat so you get real hungry and want to eat again or feel real miserable.
For the majority of us, it really doesn't matter as we can regulate insulin fairly easy. And your body will have cycles between lipogenesis and lipolysis. And that is why it doesn't matter if you are low fat or low carb, if you are in an energy deficit, you will lose fat. GL and GI, have little to NO impact on weight loss.
The bold is merely your assumption. I can eat high carbs and feel full for hours (love me some bake potatoes). But give me fat and I am starving immediately.
I'm the opposite and if eat sugar stuff, I'm starving later. If in cal deficit, the cals will come from somewhere and it seems to me that if fat can't be accessed readily, then your going to get hungry tell insulin drops and fat burning gets going again or you eat more.
When people mention sugary stuff, I generally say they are doing it wrong. And when I mention low to moderate fat, I am not talking about a diet high in ultra processed foods. I am talking highly nutritious foods; veggies, fruits, whole grains (especially high fiber) and dairy (most of mine comes from Greek yogurt).
One of the biggest issues we have when comparing diets is the lack of equally nutritious foods. Comparing highly processed, low nutrient, low satiety foods, to a low carb or very low fat diet would be disingenuous as you are altering a ton of variables, especially quality/satiety/volume of food.
You just confirmed that a cal is not a cal it seems like. That is my point.
No he did not. He said that different foods give different satiety and nutrition, both of which have little to nothing to do with the amount of calories.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Looks like the body can store fat with low insulin but probably stores much faster with high insulin. Also lipase is inhibited with high insulin and you will burn fat slower with high insulin. I think that sets the body off on a glycemic roller coaster sinse the high insulin will drop the blood sugar and inhibit energy from fat so you get real hungry and want to eat again or feel real miserable.
For the majority of us, it really doesn't matter as we can regulate insulin fairly easy. And your body will have cycles between lipogenesis and lipolysis. And that is why it doesn't matter if you are low fat or low carb, if you are in an energy deficit, you will lose fat. GL and GI, have little to NO impact on weight loss.
The bold is merely your assumption. I can eat high carbs and feel full for hours (love me some bake potatoes). But give me fat and I am starving immediately.
I'm the opposite and if eat sugar stuff, I'm starving later. If in cal deficit, the cals will come from somewhere and it seems to me that if fat can't be accessed readily, then your going to get hungry tell insulin drops and fat burning gets going again or you eat more.
When people mention sugary stuff, I generally say they are doing it wrong. And when I mention low to moderate fat, I am not talking about a diet high in ultra processed foods. I am talking highly nutritious foods; veggies, fruits, whole grains (especially high fiber) and dairy (most of mine comes from Greek yogurt).
One of the biggest issues we have when comparing diets is the lack of equally nutritious foods. Comparing highly processed, low nutrient, low satiety foods, to a low carb or very low fat diet would be disingenuous as you are altering a ton of variables, especially quality/satiety/volume of food.
You just confirmed that a cal is not a cal it seems like. That is my point.
No he did not. He said that different foods give different satiety and nutrition, both of which have little to nothing to do with the amount of calories.
Pretty much.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Looks like the body can store fat with low insulin but probably stores much faster with high insulin. Also lipase is inhibited with high insulin and you will burn fat slower with high insulin. I think that sets the body off on a glycemic roller coaster sinse the high insulin will drop the blood sugar and inhibit energy from fat so you get real hungry and want to eat again or feel real miserable.
For the majority of us, it really doesn't matter as we can regulate insulin fairly easy. And your body will have cycles between lipogenesis and lipolysis. And that is why it doesn't matter if you are low fat or low carb, if you are in an energy deficit, you will lose fat. GL and GI, have little to NO impact on weight loss.
The bold is merely your assumption. I can eat high carbs and feel full for hours (love me some bake potatoes). But give me fat and I am starving immediately.
I'm the opposite and if eat sugar stuff, I'm starving later. If in cal deficit, the cals will come from somewhere and it seems to me that if fat can't be accessed readily, then your going to get hungry tell insulin drops and fat burning gets going again or you eat more.
When people mention sugary stuff, I generally say they are doing it wrong. And when I mention low to moderate fat, I am not talking about a diet high in ultra processed foods. I am talking highly nutritious foods; veggies, fruits, whole grains (especially high fiber) and dairy (most of mine comes from Greek yogurt).
One of the biggest issues we have when comparing diets is the lack of equally nutritious foods. Comparing highly processed, low nutrient, low satiety foods, to a low carb or very low fat diet would be disingenuous as you are altering a ton of variables, especially quality/satiety/volume of food.
You just confirmed that a cal is not a cal it seems like. That is my point.
No he did not. He said that different foods give different satiety and nutrition, both of which have little to nothing to do with the amount of calories.
Pretty much.
As I mentioned a few years back, specific to Tom's blog post, this is once again a semantic debate. He takes the strict idea that it isn't just about following an equation to optimise weight loss and improve health. He's both right and wrong.
I've been on both sides of the fence. In a strict sense - if all you followed was CICO, then yes, one would less optimally than someone that optimised macros and other factors leading to satiety. However, Tom's article doesn't "slam" CICO - it still works and it is still has the primary role of weight loss.
It is just not possible to lose weight while eating 200 calories above your TDEE every day. Simple logic. It is not however the only factor to long term success or the only focus one would have. And following CICO does not preclude following a variety of other factor to address long term adhesion.
Eat less, move more is important. It isn't the end of the story. If @blambo61 want to debate the actual references of Tom's blog post and how they negate CICO, I'm in.
But the debate ends up focusing too much on what CICO really means. Surely some people do think "all you have to do is count calories" to lose weight but the nutritionally educated know that a variety of factors influence health, adhesion, performance. They aren't denying that.
Imagine some neophyte coming to the boards and saying I heard about CICO so I'm going to cut ALL the calories to lose ALL the weight. That is how the works, right? We'd all be pretty much on the same side of the fence explaining that it is more complicated than that. The principles are simple, the application and feedback loops are a bit more complex.0 -
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
Some interesting ideas here. Food for thought. A lot of things I've alluded to in the past.0 -
blues4miles wrote: »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.html
Thanks I will check it out. I read anything by Lyle McDonald, man knows his stuff. Hadn't poked around there lately but glad he is looking at the whole keto fad.
I wouldn't mistake it for Lyle "looking into the whole keto fad". He's written numerous books about ketogenic dieting, has done the research and is well-versed in just about every aspect of keto diets. It's not that he considers keto a "fad" or woo, but they're not the mysterious magical thing some people claim them to be and they don't invalidate or somehow transcend CICO.0 -
blues4miles wrote: »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.html
Thanks I will check it out. I read anything by Lyle McDonald, man knows his stuff. Hadn't poked around there lately but glad he is looking at the whole keto fad.
I wouldn't mistake it for Lyle "looking into the whole keto fad". He's written numerous books about ketogenic dieting, has done the research and is well-versed in just about every aspect of keto diets. It's not that he considers keto a "fad" or woo, but they're not the mysterious magical thing some people claim them to be and they don't invalidate or somehow transcend CICO.
If you explore the link I gave, there are a lot of studies referenced. The briefing given directly in the link wasn't meant to be rigorously backed up and I believe the author states that. Look at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?scp=1&sq=what if its all been a big fat lie?&st=cse
This references a lot if studies. Also check out the authors website.
I'm not sold on the keto diet thing. I think God made us to eat and enjoy a lot of food types including grains, fruit, and even some sugar (honey, dates, etc). I think he also made us to be able to endure hard times too (I don't believe we evolved from hunter/gatherers and just picked up farming recently like some diets propose).
Having said that, I think the keto people are spot on when they say not all cals are the same. Overeating is a nessesary condition for gaining weight but I don't think it is a sufficient condition. There are people who can eat a lot and it isn't converted to fat (exercise doesn't account for it). I think a lot of it has to do with the type of cals your eating. If your excess cals happen with an insulin spike, you will gain fat. If there is excess cals without the spike, I don't think they get turned to fat as much and it is excreted. Type of cals matter and I think that is the main point being made.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »
There are studies that support both sides looks like. I guess we have to wade through them to see who sounds like they did good studies and who didn't. I think parts of each can be correct.
I personally don't think a cal is a cal and avoiding insulin spiking stuff will help us but I don't think we need to go full keto and I don't care what the studies say, I will eat some of the types of food I believe God intended for us to eat.
I'm having some success combining some ideas from strict calorie counters and from the keto group. I'm doing a 21:3 IF diet, I think I may go into intermittent mild ketosis daily doing that. When I eat, I eat all food groups and I eat tell I'm full and I graze after that. I used to count cals but quit because I eat tell full anyways and don't limit myself much by my cal numbers and I'm losing anyways so why count! I've lost 38 lbs (including Christmas break where I didn't diet much) in 23 weeks (252 to 214, 6'1" male). I'm sure some strict calorie counters may have done as good or better and I'm also sure some haven't.
Has my weight loss followed exactly cico? I dont know but when I was counting (estimating and probably short), it seemed I was losing faster than cico said I should be. Was my maint cals not right, maybe and maybe there are other factors at play, that is what I'm saying. I'm open to investigate that! Some people do not seem open to that or think the science is settled on the subject which I don't believe it is.0 -
75lbs lost in 35 weeks, just counting calories. 250 to 175. 30-40% carbs.0
-
-
CICO is a good simple model that doesn't need to be improved. It's useful because it's simple and accurate. If you try to overcomplicate it then it is no longer simple.
That article you posted basically says that CO can change. Yes, it can and does. CI can change as well. However, as long as CI<CO, weight will be lost. If it's not lost at the rate you expect then you are not obtaining accurate numbers either on CI or CO.
I don't believe in CICO. I do however in magical pink unicorns.
I believe in something equally magical - every "cure" for obesity advertised by Dr. Oz!0 -
The img tag didn't make it come through as a picture, so I turned it into a URL.justrollme wrote:when people get to a point where they want to make an effort to manage their weight and/or their nutritional health, sometimes they turn to sources they don't realize shouldn't be trusted. Anecdotal example: a friend of mine raved about some diet from a website, recommended by someone who had lost over 100 lbs using it. (My 55 lb loss with CICO felt too out-of-reach to her, because she is afraid of counting calories.) Here's a real gem from the site's FAQ:
http://i.imgur.com/2SBJeDF.png
This friend isn't a stupid person, but clearly nutritional education is lacking, and I do think there are plenty of others in the same boat.
http://i.imgur.com/2SBJeDF.png
That's really some whacky "logic" there...
You can gain weight eating 1600 calories of "unclean" / junk food,
but will lose weight eating 2000 calories of "clean" food.
The Fuhrman diet is sort of like that. He advocates vegan foods and emphasizes vegetables, especially green leafy ones, nuts, seeds, mushrooms, beans, berries, fruits, etc. Sweetening comes from fruit (no juice, just the fruit), no salt added at all. He says you can eat all that you want but only eat three times a day and will lose weight. Only I didn't. After 3 months, I actually came away 10 pounds heavier and my fasting blood sugars were out of control. I overate because I wasn't eating what I really wanted and I always felt hungry and hollow, so I just kept eating. I was obsessed with food, I literally couldn't do my job or focus on my schoolwork because I felt hungry all of the time (the cravings were supposed to go away the first two weeks). Also, it's a lot of work because the diet has to be balanced very precisely. Plus the food was gross and I haven't been able to face a salad in weeks. Since I came off of the diet 3 weeks ago, I've eaten anything that fits in my macros, stuck pretty successfully to a 1450 calorie diet and have lost 5 pounds. CICO works. I don't understand how, but it does.0 -
positivepowers wrote: »
The img tag didn't make it come through as a picture, so I turned it into a URL.justrollme wrote:when people get to a point where they want to make an effort to manage their weight and/or their nutritional health, sometimes they turn to sources they don't realize shouldn't be trusted. Anecdotal example: a friend of mine raved about some diet from a website, recommended by someone who had lost over 100 lbs using it. (My 55 lb loss with CICO felt too out-of-reach to her, because she is afraid of counting calories.) Here's a real gem from the site's FAQ:
http://i.imgur.com/2SBJeDF.png
This friend isn't a stupid person, but clearly nutritional education is lacking, and I do think there are plenty of others in the same boat.
http://i.imgur.com/2SBJeDF.png
That's really some whacky "logic" there...
You can gain weight eating 1600 calories of "unclean" / junk food,
but will lose weight eating 2000 calories of "clean" food.
The Fuhrman diet is sort of like that. He advocates vegan foods and emphasizes vegetables, especially green leafy ones, nuts, seeds, mushrooms, beans, berries, fruits, etc. Sweetening comes from fruit (no juice, just the fruit), no salt added at all. He says you can eat all that you want but only eat three times a day and will lose weight. Only I didn't. After 3 months, I actually came away 10 pounds heavier and my fasting blood sugars were out of control. I overate because I wasn't eating what I really wanted and I always felt hungry and hollow, so I just kept eating. I was obsessed with food, I literally couldn't do my job or focus on my schoolwork because I felt hungry all of the time (the cravings were supposed to go away the first two weeks). Also, it's a lot of work because the diet has to be balanced very precisely. Plus the food was gross and I haven't been able to face a salad in weeks. Since I came off of the diet 3 weeks ago, I've eaten anything that fits in my macros, stuck pretty successfully to a 1450 calorie diet and have lost 5 pounds. CICO works. I don't understand how, but it does.
Awesome!!0 -
blues4miles wrote: »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.html
Thanks I will check it out. I read anything by Lyle McDonald, man knows his stuff. Hadn't poked around there lately but glad he is looking at the whole keto fad.
I wouldn't mistake it for Lyle "looking into the whole keto fad". He's written numerous books about ketogenic dieting, has done the research and is well-versed in just about every aspect of keto diets. It's not that he considers keto a "fad" or woo, but they're not the mysterious magical thing some people claim them to be and they don't invalidate or somehow transcend CICO.
If you explore the link I gave, there are a lot of studies referenced. The briefing given directly in the link wasn't meant to be rigorously backed up and I believe the author states that. Look at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?scp=1&sq=what if its all been a big fat lie?&st=cse
This references a lot if studies. Also check out the authors website.
I'm not sold on the keto diet thing. I think God made us to eat and enjoy a lot of food types including grains, fruit, and even some sugar (honey, dates, etc). I think he also made us to be able to endure hard times too (I don't believe we evolved from hunter/gatherers and just picked up farming recently like some diets propose).
Having said that, I think the keto people are spot on when they say not all cals are the same. Overeating is a nessesary condition for gaining weight but I don't think it is a sufficient condition. There are people who can eat a lot and it isn't converted to fat (exercise doesn't account for it). I think a lot of it has to do with the type of cals your eating. If your excess cals happen with an insulin spike, you will gain fat. If there is excess cals without the spike, I don't think they get turned to fat as much and it is excreted. Type of cals matter and I think that is the main point being made.
If you think they, you would be wrong. There are several metabolic pathways for your body to store fat. First is you eat carbs, the glucoses causes your pancreases to increase insulin production, which leads to release of Lipoprotein Lipase (fat storing enzyme). With a diet very high in fat (so low levels of insulin), it will release the enzyme Acylation Stimulating Protein (ASP), which suppresses Hormone Sensitive Lipase (HSL) or the enzyme to break down fat. And just for fun, if you eat both fat and carbs, then you have glucose-dependent insulinotrophic peptide (GIP), which would suppress HSL.
I believe that is how all of the enzymes work. In the end, your body is an amazing machine and can create fat in any environment, that you present. Overall, your total energy in must be less than out to have greater periods of lipolysis than lipogenesis.0 -
I saw his inclusion of carb portion as saying that it doesn't matter ... he ate carbs and still lost 2 pounds a week. Different people prefer different percents of their calories to come from each macro, but still lose weight because their calories are in line. That's the whole point behind IIFYM (and CICO) - find the macro balance/eating style that works best for you, and eat what fits within that. No one advocates a diet of nothing but "junk" food, just that some treats, within your macros goals, won't derail anything. That's why you will find success with Keto, HFLC, 80/10/10, and all sorts of other programs. They are within their body's calorie needs and have found what satisfies them the most. But that doesn't change that it's still all about the Calories in and Calories Out.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »
There are studies that support both sides looks like. I guess we have to wade through them to see who sounds like they did good studies and who didn't. I think parts of each can be correct.
I personally don't think a cal is a cal and avoiding insulin spiking stuff will help us but I don't think we need to go full keto and I don't care what the studies say, I will eat some of the types of food I believe God intended for us to eat.
I'm having some success combining some ideas from strict calorie counters and from the keto group. I'm doing a 21:3 IF diet, I think I may go into intermittent mild ketosis daily doing that. When I eat, I eat all food groups and I eat tell I'm full and I graze after that. I used to count cals but quit because I eat tell full anyways and don't limit myself much by my cal numbers and I'm losing anyways so why count! I've lost 38 lbs (including Christmas break where I didn't diet much) in 23 weeks (252 to 214, 6'1" male). I'm sure some strict calorie counters may have done as good or better and I'm also sure some haven't.
Has my weight loss followed exactly cico? I dont know but when I was counting (estimating and probably short), it seemed I was losing faster than cico said I should be. Was my maint cals not right, maybe and maybe there are other factors at play, that is what I'm saying. I'm open to investigate that! Some people do not seem open to that or think the science is settled on the subject which I don't believe it is.
CICO is an energy balance equation. Within that, you have dietary preference (vegan/vegetarian <-- lots of carbs and insulin, paleo, low carb/keto, flexible, and everything in between). I went from 220 down to 175 (my highschool weight) just making smarter choices and I eat 250g of carbs day with 110g of sugar.0 -
That he seems to get more Calories from carbs than any other individual macro - unsure, of course, of total macro breakdown, and thus how much fat - makes you think he's limiting those? Seriously?0 -
Nope, a calorie is a calorie. For the record, 40% is about 400 grams of carbs for me... There's no limiting them.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