Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

CICO is not the whole equation

1…910121415…30

Replies

  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    It would be nice if CICO would explain "WHY" some animals consume more than they burn. Healthy animals do not become obese in nature.

    Um. What? Any credible references that this is a thing?

    Please quote my entire post to get my point of view in more detail.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    If i lived out in the wilds of Africa and had to hunt and gather my food I'm sure i'd be stick thin, bringing down a wildebeest takes energy!

    As to the intuitive eating... I can stop eating when I'm satisfied, i know the difference between hunger/cravings/thirst and just eating for the hell of it. It's whether i choose to stop eating when i should, or do i eat that piece of cheesecake because it tastes so good. For me, it's intuitive eating V willpower.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »
    @GaleHawkins do you have any evidence that humans have "lost" the ability to eat intuitively and keep weight in a healthy range in the presence of abundant food? I wonder if we ever really had that ability or if food was just scarce and/or activity was higher before the modern age.

    Yeah, this is my reaction.

    Humans had no reason to select for an ability to intuitively eat -- over human history eating a particular number of calories per day that happens to be our TDEE was not helpful. Eating food when it was there was. So not surprising an environment of abundant food tends to result in humans wanting to eat more, whether they need to or not.

    Over history, this was normally regulated by scarcity, the need for lots of activity, and cultural traditions surrounding food and limiting eating times, none of which exist for most of us on MFP (or didn't unless we imposed them).

    I think some may be able to self-regulate without thinking about it (I have one cat who seems to, whereas my other one would be obese if I didn't regulate his food), but that the majority of humans don't is not surprising to me.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    The thing I take issue with often from those who low carb (which, by the way, I have no issue with as a way of eating if it works for you, I certainly cut way back on carbs when cutting, it's just the easiest thing to ditch for me), is this assertion that great swathes of the worlds population have some sort of metabolic issue/medical issue that makes carbs bad for them. And I'm happy to be corrected with actual statistics but I'm just not sure that stacks up.

    Agree with this (including having no problem with low carb and finding cutting carbs a reasonable way to cut since for me they tend to be what I miss least beyond a certain amount of fat). Given that a huge number of healthy human diets are high carb or at least higher carb than the US, including most blue zone diets, and that populations in those areas have very low incidents of things like T2D, not high, let alone half the population or some such, the idea that half of humans or, really, any significant number of humans at all need to be on such a diet naturally for health reasons seems extremely far-fetched to me. If anything the evidence suggests to me that higher carb might be healthier (although I like moderate to low-ish better and see no reason to think it's bad for me so am not overly bothered by that).

    Now, could humans who have developed metabolic syndrome for reasons OTHER THAN simply eating high carb (being overweight, maybe diet, maybe some combination, maybe other factors like steroid use which is I believe a risk factor, so on) subsequently have reasons to lower carbs for health reasons? Sure, although for a lot of people who respond to just losing weight (probably a significant majority of the IR people in the western world and increasingly in developing countries) going low carb is probably not necessary for health reasons from what I've read and even increases/makes worse the reaction to carbs (although it might make actually losing the weight easier when it is happening if one is already IR).

    Getting to the point where one is metabolically healthy again -- can eat some potato without having problematic blood sugar -- would seem to be the real indication of remission or whatever and an ideal, but clearly if one can't do that choosing a diet that helps would be a great choice (and there are a variety of IR people on MFP who have done this in lots of ways, as I'm sure you know).

    But yeah, the idea that about 50% of people naturally need a low carb diet seems to be entirely inconsistent with the evidence.

  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    edited January 2017
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »
    @GaleHawkins do you have any evidence that humans have "lost" the ability to eat intuitively and keep weight in a healthy range in the presence of abundant food? I wonder if we ever really had that ability or if food was just scarce and/or activity was higher before the modern age.

    Yeah, this is my reaction.

    Humans had no reason to select for an ability to intuitively eat -- over human history eating a particular number of calories per day that happens to be our TDEE was not helpful. Eating food when it was there was. So not surprising an environment of abundant food tends to result in humans wanting to eat more, whether they need to or not.

    Over history, this was normally regulated by scarcity, the need for lots of activity, and cultural traditions surrounding food and limiting eating times, none of which exist for most of us on MFP (or didn't unless we imposed them).

    I think some may be able to self-regulate without thinking about it (I have one cat who seems to, whereas my other one would be obese if I didn't regulate his food), but that the majority of humans don't is not surprising to me.

    Interestingly, it appears that areas that never would have historically had long "lean periods" (usually civilizations near the equator) and people from those areas have lower incidences of obesity. That seems to hold until the Western diet starts to move in anyway.

    The biggest issue would appear to be sugared drinks. No shock that adding several hundred pointless calories would screw with autoregulation of intake though. Hell, even Mexico wasn't that bad until the 90s, and they're right next door.

    All of it certainly jibes with an evolutionary need to fatten up for the winter (or lack there of) though.
  • CynthiasChoice
    CynthiasChoice Posts: 1,047 Member
    I have some simple questions related to CICO:

    Do you believe metabolism can be altered by changing levels of vitamins or mineral balances in the body?
    Is metabolism affected by level of hydration?
    Is it affected by exposure to environmental toxins?
    Is it affected by the body's hormonal response to stress?

    There is research being done in all these areas, with some studies showing clear evidence that metabolism can be positively or negatively altered by our environment, level of hydration, and nutrition. We need more studies and more time to get a clearer picture. The science is still young.

    It should be the great hope of everyone using this site that there IS indeed more to the picture than CICO. Yes, we can control the calories in, but the calories out is still a bit of a puzzle. While we think we've got it all under control, nature will surprise us. Don't the nuances make life more interesting?


  • CynthiasChoice
    CynthiasChoice Posts: 1,047 Member
    Yes, I understand your point. But if nutrition affects the speed of calories out, then a calorie of one food may not be equal to a calorie of another food.
  • CynthiasChoice
    CynthiasChoice Posts: 1,047 Member
    Sorry, I worded that badly. Yes a calorie of one food equals the calorie of another. And no energy can ever be "lost." But eating nutritious foods may help the body burn calories faster.
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »
    @GaleHawkins do you have any evidence that humans have "lost" the ability to eat intuitively and keep weight in a healthy range in the presence of abundant food? I wonder if we ever really had that ability or if food was just scarce and/or activity was higher before the modern age.

    I used to work at an aquarium and I learned that penguins are the only aquarium animal that self-regulates its intake. All the other animals will eat as much as they are fed and so their intake is strictly monitored. Only penguins will turn down food if it's above and beyond what they need. Trainers would give the penguins has much as they wanted, and when they started to "bulk" that's how the staff knew that they were about to molt (because they can't swim during molting, they put on enough weight to go the entire molting period without eating).

    Most animals are opportunistic feeders. I'm just curious what makes you think humans fall into the "penguin" category and not the "any other aquarium animal" category.

    @ILiftHeavyAcrylics no animal is purely opportunistic feeders unless the is some control subsystem(s) failure. Just like with oxygen intake there are systems that controls when and what animals eat or drink. Now being in forced captivity like in an aquarium can screw up natural eating patterns for any number of reasons. This can also happen in humans trapped in a form of captivity like a bad relationship, job, etc I expect.

    https://peprotech.com/en-US is a company that is deep into understanding how our our subsystems work including how we eat and why we eat the amounts that we eat.

    https://peprotech.com/Lists/PTPublications/Regulation%20of%20Body%20Weight%20in%20Humans.pdf This paper entitled: Regulation of Body Weight in Humans contains some of the science that you asked about but it is written assuming an advanced understanding of how the human body maintains an ideal weight range but the last the last two sentences are not that technical.

    "(10). Taken together, these findings suggest that ghrelin is
    an important stimulator of food intake, and that failure to
    suppress its postprandial levels may lead to overeating. They
    also implicate high dietary fructose, especially when derived
    from HFCS-sweetened beverages, as a major contributor to
    the accelerated rates of obesity in modern societies."

    There are listed references for anyone that wants to drill deeper on the built-in weight regulation that is common to humans and most all animals.

    From the Introduction:

    "Unaccountable loss or gain of body weight by more than
    3% over relatively short time constitutes an alarming
    indication of a health problem.

    Loss of weight due to
    famine or intended caloric restriction is almost always
    recovered within weeks after the restraints on food intake
    are removed. Return to initial weight within weeks also
    occurs after termination of voluntary overeating regimens.
    Such observations led to the realization that weight
    stability is a consequence of autonomic mechanisms
    that act to maintain the reserved energy of the body at a
    relatively constant value and to resist displacements from
    this value."

    The need to count calories to maintain weight an alarming indication a health problem per this research on the subject. It was only after I was able to address some of my health problems by getting my Way Of Eating macro corrected so that I was eating the foods that works best for me did I loose weight and have maintained that loss for two years now. I eat all that I want most every day so I am in no way deprived. At 65 my health and health markers are better than at 45.

    Again the science is not simple but basically we are made up of many chemically controlled subsystems that tell us when to eat, drink and breath and how much to eat, drink and breath.

    Healthy humans do NOT over eat normally. CI does not address why we over eat. Until we learn WHY we over eat we need to weight our food and estimate the calories until our health returns to the point that our weight is self regulating.
  • ILiftHeavyAcrylics
    ILiftHeavyAcrylics Posts: 27,732 Member
    @GaleHawkins so you've said, but I'm asking what makes you think that. It goes against everything I've ever heard from the biologists I know.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    edited January 2017
    stevencloser wrote: »
    CynthiasChoice wrote: »
    Sorry, I worded that badly. Yes a calorie of one food equals the calorie of another. And no energy can ever be "lost." But eating nutritious foods may help the body burn calories faster.

    Why would it? That goes against survivability in nature. Burn more, need to eat more. Need to eat more and not have it available, lose faster. Lose faster, starve faster.

    This iI think what @CynthiasChoice wrote is partially true. Just look at the thrmogenic effects of some macros. Others will influence hormones and overall health. It isn't huge fifferences but it can work out to a few pounds per year.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,972 Member
    edited January 2017
    CynthiasChoice wrote: »
    I have some simple questions related to CICO:

    Do you believe metabolism can be altered by changing levels of vitamins or mineral balances in the body?
    Maybe. But I'm sure it's not that significant if you're already getting in the correct micronutrients
    Is metabolism affected by level of hydration?
    Yes
    Is it affected by exposure to environmental toxins?
    Only if those toxins are stopping you from moving around and the type of toxins you're exposed to.
    Is it affected by the body's hormonal response to stress?
    Maybe. Excess cortisol can increase fat cell production.
    There is research being done in all these areas, with some studies showing clear evidence that metabolism can be positively or negatively altered by our environment, level of hydration, and nutrition. We need more studies and more time to get a clearer picture. The science is still young.

    It should be the great hope of everyone using this site that there IS indeed more to the picture than CICO. Yes, we can control the calories in, but the calories out is still a bit of a puzzle. While we think we've got it all under control, nature will surprise us. Don't the nuances make life more interesting?
    CICO dominates just about any other process when it comes to losing weight. While there may be issues for not losing it due to health and hormonal issues, we're speaking here of the general public. And even with hormonal issues, CICO has to be applied to lose weight.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • Theo166
    Theo166 Posts: 2,564 Member
    CynthiasChoice wrote: »
    Sorry, I worded that badly. Yes a calorie of one food equals the calorie of another. And no energy can ever be "lost." But eating nutritious foods may help the body burn calories faster.

    Or the timing of when you eat that food, nutritious or not.
    I expect saving all your calories for the end of the day will affect your burn rate.
  • snickerscharlie
    snickerscharlie Posts: 8,578 Member
    Theo166 wrote: »
    CynthiasChoice wrote: »
    Sorry, I worded that badly. Yes a calorie of one food equals the calorie of another. And no energy can ever be "lost." But eating nutritious foods may help the body burn calories faster.

    Or the timing of when you eat that food, nutritious or not.
    I expect saving all your calories for the end of the day will affect your burn rate.

    How so?

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,972 Member
    Theo166 wrote: »
    CynthiasChoice wrote: »
    Sorry, I worded that badly. Yes a calorie of one food equals the calorie of another. And no energy can ever be "lost." But eating nutritious foods may help the body burn calories faster.

    Or the timing of when you eat that food, nutritious or not.
    I expect saving all your calories for the end of the day will affect your burn rate.
    Overthinking this. If there's a calorie deficit by the end of the day, TIMING and NUTRITION don't matter much when it comes to weight loss.
    Before the agricultural revolution, people would hunt morning to evening and have 1 main meal at the end of the day. And they of course obesity wasn't an issue unless you were of royalty.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    Theo166 wrote: »
    CynthiasChoice wrote: »
    Sorry, I worded that badly. Yes a calorie of one food equals the calorie of another. And no energy can ever be "lost." But eating nutritious foods may help the body burn calories faster.

    Or the timing of when you eat that food, nutritious or not.
    I expect saving all your calories for the end of the day will affect your burn rate.

    Nope.
  • Theo166
    Theo166 Posts: 2,564 Member
    I stand corrected, I will no longer espouse meal timing matters, just the quality of the food.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Theo166 wrote: »
    CynthiasChoice wrote: »
    Sorry, I worded that badly. Yes a calorie of one food equals the calorie of another. And no energy can ever be "lost." But eating nutritious foods may help the body burn calories faster.

    Or the timing of when you eat that food, nutritious or not.
    I expect saving all your calories for the end of the day will affect your burn rate.

    Nope
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited January 2017
    CynthiasChoice wrote: »
    I have some simple questions related to CICO:

    Do you believe metabolism can be altered by changing levels of vitamins or mineral balances in the body?

    In terms of what your body just burns for being alive? I doubt it -- it doesn't make sense to me. I guess the idea would be that if your body perceives starvation due to lack of nutrients metabolism would be slowed down? I do think, of course, that being malnourished affects energy levels and having a healthier diet can improve energy levels even beyond actual malnutrition, probably.

    What these kinds of discussions sometimes seem to miss is that for your body increasing calories out (without also increasing work) is generally a bad thing, wasteful, so having that be a reaction to getting adequate nutrients doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

    Aside from all this, though, of course being malnourished/having an unhealthy diet is bad for us independent of the affect on metabolism, so I'd hope that whether one believes it affects metabolism or not one would avoid eating so badly as to be malnourished.
    Is metabolism affected by level of hydration?

    As in if you drink a gallon or two (or whatever people are into) of water you burn calories more? Again, I doubt it and honestly don't understand how healthy humans with access to water (absent unusually hot conditions or activity levels) would have a problem with hydration level. Inadequate hydration might affect energy, sure, but metabolism would hardly be the main problem.
    Is it affected by exposure to environmental toxins?

    Maybe? But again the idea that you burn less if poisoned doesn't make a lot of sense as outside of the unusual historical situation of obesity being a problem burning more without more work being achieved is not a positive state.
    Is it affected by the body's hormonal response to stress?

    Basically, cortisol? Yes, I think this is true. I don't think it is a particularly significant effect in the scheme of things (as shown by the fact that low carbing tends to be both a very effective way to lose weight and to increase cortisol). I don't think someone with lots of weight to lose will have a deficit and not lose due to stress.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    CynthiasChoice wrote: »
    Sorry, I worded that badly. Yes a calorie of one food equals the calorie of another. And no energy can ever be "lost." But eating nutritious foods may help the body burn calories faster.

    I should add to my prior post that "not being malnourished" is a quite different thing from "eating only healthy foods." I start with the presupposition that someone is eating a nutritionally-adequate diet (because everyone should, independent of weight loss) and then will eliminating so-called "bad foods" (like occasional ice cream) and eating equal calories of so-called "healthy foods" (whatever one defines as such, let's say 200 calories of lentils and carrots instead of the ice cream) matter? Can't see any argument that it would.
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »
    @GaleHawkins so you've said, but I'm asking what makes you think that. It goes against everything I've ever heard from the biologists I know.

    Perhaps they are unaware of medical research like Ii linked to earlier?
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    RoteBook wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »
    @GaleHawkins so you've said, but I'm asking what makes you think that. It goes against everything I've ever heard from the biologists I know.

    Perhaps they are unaware of medical research like Ii linked to earlier?

    That article sure does "look sciency," but it's not actually research. It's not peer reviewed. It's not published anywhere other than their own (sales) website.

    @RoteBook the article is marketing materials for their solutions used by the research community. Did you just fail to see the 10 peered reviewed articles that they used to support their marketing piece?

    If you are saying articles from peer reviewed scientific journals are without merit or value I disagree with you.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories