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
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »CICO based on TDEE does succeed. Proven over and over. No one denies the equation can be tweaked based on many things, but very few fail to see results doing CICO, and doing it correctly. Look in the success forum. Almost ever person posting there for the last years have a basis of CICO, then many tweak or make enhancements that fit them. Read the scientific papers on CICO. While some other adjusted CICO diets have been seen to provided additional benefits or loss, the basic CICO control groups ALWAYS loses weight, with no fan fare.
Except CICO <> Calorie counting, which is really what you are talking about. CICO is the underlying reason people lose weight regardless of their method. Calorie counting is the method MFP is based on.
Erm, how do you determine your calories in (CI) and calories out (CO) without counting calories?
You don't have to determine it to make CICO work for you (although I think counting makes it a lot easier). You could use a method that might help you reach a deficit without counting -- like reducing carbohydrates or IF or a thousand other different plans.
When they work, they work because they help someone consume less than they're burning.
Counting calories is one way -- I think a really reliable way -- to achieve a deficit. But it isn't the only way.
pretty much this. I calorie counted for a long time and it taught to know, roughly, how many calories to consume. I have not logged or weighed in the past six months and I have not gained a pound. I will say that when one is at goal weight that it becomes harder to lose more and get leaner without calorie counting.1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
TEF shouldn't be included in "calorie burns" though. That's majoring in the minors. How many people eat 250 grams of protein a day anyway unless they are doing keto? And when burning calories for physical activity, does the body resort amino acids or energy from carbs (glycogen) first?Russellb97 wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »I will backtrack a bit by saying that not every calorie is equal.
There's the thermic effect of food (250 grams of protein burns about 250 more calories than 250 grams of sugar)
They also vary in nutrition, fullness, and effect on hormones.
But weight-loss can be had with any type of food/calorie
A calorie is a unit of measurement - the "amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere". You're mixing up a unit of measurement with food.
No I'm not.
250 grams of protein is approx. 1000 calories protein. It has a TEF of 30-35%, which means for those 1,000 calories "IN" your body will expend about 300-350 calories to metabolize them.
For the same amount of carbs, it would expend about 60
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
Most people eating much over 100 grams of protein daily will be knocked out of ketosis. Keto is NOT a high protein WOE because about half of protein can become glucose like sugar becomes.
It would take a lot more than 100g to knock someone out of Ketosis. And if people restricted themselves to that level of protein, most of people following the diet would be losing a lot of muscle (at least the males) because that won't even remotely address the requirements for many.
One thing I've noticed is that many ketoers freak out over protein, many of them aim for the bare minimum.
Which I find often funny because keto is pushed as muscle sparring based on a lot of research. But that research all has protein as higher levels (often 30% of calories or more). So it would further support the protein doesn't push you out of ketosis as easily. And whats worse, if you have inadequate protein, you would not only increase the chance of muscle loss and a slower metabolic, but you would also negate any potential increase to EE from keto.
It's why I always say, if you dont' follow a diet like it's described in the studies, you can't expect the results. It was a big argument I had the recent SFA studies. Yes, they conclude the SFA do not harm health, but they were at 15% of calories. I would suspect that many on keto have much higher levels. Heck, I think I am at a much higher level.
I don't see the merits of debating whether an individual is "in keto". One that restricts carbs might find themselves in keto, say 90% of the day, but might fall out of ketogenesis for a small while. In my experience, and involving the simplest definition of ketogenesis, its ONLY the extent of the body's production of ketones to compensate for a lack of dietary or bloodstream carbohydrates. Those ketones go to work on fats and protein and alcohols to produce the sugars we need to fuel our bodies, actually through pretty similar metabolic pathways.
So yeah...everything ends up sugar, and if you're overeating, there will be insulin spikes and glycemic overloads and all those things low carb dieters fear...even if you eat no carbs (try chugging 2 scoops of whey in the morning on keto and then measure insulin...!)
I can understand the argument that negative feedback might result in one getting knocked out of keto because they eat too much protein, but jeez, it'd have to be ALOT of protein.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »CICO based on TDEE does succeed. Proven over and over. No one denies the equation can be tweaked based on many things, but very few fail to see results doing CICO, and doing it correctly. Look in the success forum. Almost ever person posting there for the last years have a basis of CICO, then many tweak or make enhancements that fit them. Read the scientific papers on CICO. While some other adjusted CICO diets have been seen to provided additional benefits or loss, the basic CICO control groups ALWAYS loses weight, with no fan fare.
Except CICO <> Calorie counting, which is really what you are talking about. CICO is the underlying reason people lose weight regardless of their method. Calorie counting is the method MFP is based on.
Erm, how do you determine your calories in (CI) and calories out (CO) without counting calories?
You don't have to determine it to make CICO work for you (although I think counting makes it a lot easier). You could use a method that might help you reach a deficit without counting -- like reducing carbohydrates or IF or a thousand other different plans.
When they work, they work because they help someone consume less than they're burning.
Counting calories is one way -- I think a really reliable way -- to achieve a deficit. But it isn't the only way.
pretty much this. I calorie counted for a long time and it taught to know, roughly, how many calories to consume. I have not logged or weighed in the past six months and I have not gained a pound. I will say that when one is at goal weight that it becomes harder to lose more and get leaner without calorie counting.
Estimating the factors and result of a math problem is still solving that math problem, just not very accurately.
I am very curious to look into methods that people achieve CI<CO without counting calories in some form or another, with varying degrees of accuracy, when I get home from work today. I just don't see how it is possible. Perhaps I lack imagination
0 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »CICO based on TDEE does succeed. Proven over and over. No one denies the equation can be tweaked based on many things, but very few fail to see results doing CICO, and doing it correctly. Look in the success forum. Almost ever person posting there for the last years have a basis of CICO, then many tweak or make enhancements that fit them. Read the scientific papers on CICO. While some other adjusted CICO diets have been seen to provided additional benefits or loss, the basic CICO control groups ALWAYS loses weight, with no fan fare.
Except CICO <> Calorie counting, which is really what you are talking about. CICO is the underlying reason people lose weight regardless of their method. Calorie counting is the method MFP is based on.
Erm, how do you determine your calories in (CI) and calories out (CO) without counting calories?
You don't have to determine it to make CICO work for you (although I think counting makes it a lot easier). You could use a method that might help you reach a deficit without counting -- like reducing carbohydrates or IF or a thousand other different plans.
When they work, they work because they help someone consume less than they're burning.
Counting calories is one way -- I think a really reliable way -- to achieve a deficit. But it isn't the only way.
pretty much this. I calorie counted for a long time and it taught to know, roughly, how many calories to consume. I have not logged or weighed in the past six months and I have not gained a pound. I will say that when one is at goal weight that it becomes harder to lose more and get leaner without calorie counting.
Estimating the factors and result of a math problem is still solving that math problem, just not very accurately.
I am very curious to look into methods that people achieve CI<CO without counting calories in some form or another, with varying degrees of accuracy, when I get home from work today. I just don't see how it is possible. Perhaps I lack imagination
Whoa Whoa...Accuracy and efficacy are not the same thing. Anyone if they so choose can go Ci<Co any time they wish. The old addage of "eat less, run more" comes to mind. I don't think counting calories was ever much of a thing back in the 70s when nutritional labels and estimations were not standardized per serving, and yet weight loss was not uncommon.
I don't think anyone here can argue with the fact that we inherently know when we are overeating and gaining weight or undereating and losing weight...I truly believe that is built into our human programming. Achieving Ci<Co is not something that must be documented and acknowledged. Sometimes..we just exist in a deficit and know it. Sometimes we are in surplus and know that instinctively as well.2 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »CICO based on TDEE does succeed. Proven over and over. No one denies the equation can be tweaked based on many things, but very few fail to see results doing CICO, and doing it correctly. Look in the success forum. Almost ever person posting there for the last years have a basis of CICO, then many tweak or make enhancements that fit them. Read the scientific papers on CICO. While some other adjusted CICO diets have been seen to provided additional benefits or loss, the basic CICO control groups ALWAYS loses weight, with no fan fare.
Except CICO <> Calorie counting, which is really what you are talking about. CICO is the underlying reason people lose weight regardless of their method. Calorie counting is the method MFP is based on.
Erm, how do you determine your calories in (CI) and calories out (CO) without counting calories?
Calorie counting is just one of many tools. I put on about 10 Lbs from Oct - Dec which is pretty typical on an annual basis for me because my overall activity (exercise and general) tends to drop. I don't count calories...haven't done so in years. I'm losing about 1 Lb per week as a trend right now which means I'm in about a 500 calorie per day or 3,500 calorie per week deficit.
Things I do...in maintenance I'm afforded more treats...they tend to fall by the wayside for the most part when I'm cutting or at least are substantially reduced. I'm not as lose with my meals...I eat relatively freely in maintenance and reign in portions, etc when I'm cutting weight. I've also started moving more again...I'm walking 3 miles per day 7x weekly and right now I'm hitting about 60 miles per week on the bike and lifting 2x per week. The weather is also starting to get nicer here so I'm out and about playing at the park and whatnot with the kids on weekends rather than sitting on the couch watching movies and football.
I'm still eating quite a bit of food, just not quite as much and I'm moving more.
ETA: any diet works on the principle of less energy coming in and more energy going out...so people use any number of diets.0 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »I am very curious to look into methods that people achieve CI<CO without counting calories in some form or another, with varying degrees of accuracy, when I get home from work today. I just don't see how it is possible. Perhaps I lack imagination
Mediterranean diet
some Keto
intuitive eating
Atkins
Weight watchers
the list goes on and on.
Calorie counting is a specific means of weight loss. One of many possible ways people restrict their intake to achieve a calorie deficit. Lots of people do it and succeed at it, even long term.
Calorie counting is working for me and, I suspect, will work for me for the rest of my life. But I've lost weight before without counting calories and know lots of others who do. Hell, eat less move more doesn't even need calorie counting.
1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Out of interest how are you guys sure you're still in ketosis?
Are you using (less reliable) urine testing strips?
Or testing blood ketones with a monitor and finger pricks?
Or going by how you feel, or breath acetone analysis? Just curious.
For the first few days I get headaches if I'm not careful about salt intake, and I get low level headaches throughout if I'm again not careful. When eating "normally" for me, headaches are never an issue. I also pee more with the same fluid intake (especially so the first 24 hours) and my breath is.....different, hard to explain! I'm actually not overly fussed about being in ketosis so that's why I don't test in any way. It's just a byproduct of the cutting method being used.
Okay, I understand following body cues (mine were distinct when I was doing keto) but it's a stretch to say 'no effect on ketosis' when you basing the assessment on how you feel, not actual data.Indygirl_81 wrote: »I agree with the OP... CICO is not the end on be all for everyone. I can eat less calories than I expend but if they are loaded with carbs, I will gain- this is because of medical conditions. To those who don't have these, you don't understand that it does affect weight loss.... thank you OP!
Which medical condition leads to the creation of bodyfat in a calorie deficit?
Hop on to nearly any hypothyroid discussion. There are a committed community that believe this despite all evidence to the contrary.
In untreated hypothyroidism the weight gain is complex and multifaceted but not related to a simple calorie deficit derived from food, rather a lowered basal metabolic rate neutralizing or negating reductions of caloric input as the CO is reduced.
Sure a 'deficit' would relate to weigh loss but achieving that deficit is harder to do. People find they eat and move the same but can't create a loss due to the basal metabolic rate being negatively affected by the impaired thyroid function.
Metabolic rate is affected by many things such as age, gender, size, temperature, medications, hormones etc ... thyroid hormones are intricately tied to metabolism.
.................
The root cause of the complexity lies with obesity. Hormones are free cycling, so simply being overweight inhibits hormonal balance as the increase in tissue lessens the chance of the hormones finding receptor sites. The best course of action is to lose weight in a safe responsible manner through a caloric deficit and moderate exercise.
REE is reduced by ~5% based on diagnostic evidence and this is on patients moving from a full thyroid panel in the normal range to complete withdrawal from hormone supplementation. So a person with a calculated maintenance of 2000 kcals/day would then need to reduce this to 1900 kcals/day. 100 kcals/day difference.
What many actually experience is a shift in satiety factors and hunger signals, which causes hypothyroid patients to eat more.
Changes in hormone response secondary to obesity is a complicating factor for some.
However, there are many who gain weight gain/difficulty losing from hypothyroidism who are not obese but just a little overweight so that bunch of complications has no impact. Many are talking about 5kg, not 35kg etc
......
The effect (in calories) regarding the deficit change needed to counter the change in metabolic rate second to hypothyroidism would surely depend on an individual's degree of hormonal dysfunction and the big picture off their overall metabolic rate.
This makes calculation on CI:CO some difficult as the CO part of the equation is impacted by the (height weight age gender) data put into the mfp computer as well as 'estimated' activity level, variables such as temperate, medication, genetics and hormonal implications.
You can measure CI, but CO is always going to be an estimate and untreated hypothyroidism and subsequent effect on metabolic rate, to relative degrees will be a variable in that estimate.
0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »I am very curious to look into methods that people achieve CI<CO without counting calories in some form or another, with varying degrees of accuracy, when I get home from work today. I just don't see how it is possible. Perhaps I lack imagination
Mediterranean diet
some Keto
intuitive eating
Atkins
Weight watchers
the list goes on and on.
Calorie counting is a specific means of weight loss. One of many possible ways people restrict their intake to achieve a calorie deficit. Lots of people do it and succeed at it, even long term.
Calorie counting is working for me and, I suspect, will work for me for the rest of my life. But I've lost weight before without counting calories and know lots of others who do. Hell, eat less move more doesn't even need calorie counting.
Thanks for the suggestions. I will look into these when I am away from disapproving managers.
1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
TEF shouldn't be included in "calorie burns" though. That's majoring in the minors. How many people eat 250 grams of protein a day anyway unless they are doing keto? And when burning calories for physical activity, does the body resort amino acids or energy from carbs (glycogen) first?Russellb97 wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »I will backtrack a bit by saying that not every calorie is equal.
There's the thermic effect of food (250 grams of protein burns about 250 more calories than 250 grams of sugar)
They also vary in nutrition, fullness, and effect on hormones.
But weight-loss can be had with any type of food/calorie
A calorie is a unit of measurement - the "amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere". You're mixing up a unit of measurement with food.
No I'm not.
250 grams of protein is approx. 1000 calories protein. It has a TEF of 30-35%, which means for those 1,000 calories "IN" your body will expend about 300-350 calories to metabolize them.
For the same amount of carbs, it would expend about 60
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
Most people eating much over 100 grams of protein daily will be knocked out of ketosis. Keto is NOT a high protein WOE because about half of protein can become glucose like sugar becomes.
It would take a lot more than 100g to knock someone out of Ketosis. And if people restricted themselves to that level of protein, most of people following the diet would be losing a lot of muscle (at least the males) because that won't even remotely address the requirements for many.
One thing I've noticed is that many ketoers freak out over protein, many of them aim for the bare minimum.
Which I find often funny because keto is pushed as muscle sparring based on a lot of research. But that research all has protein as higher levels (often 30% of calories or more). So it would further support the protein doesn't push you out of ketosis as easily. And whats worse, if you have inadequate protein, you would not only increase the chance of muscle loss and a slower metabolic, but you would also negate any potential increase to EE from keto.
It's why I always say, if you dont' follow a diet like it's described in the studies, you can't expect the results. It was a big argument I had the recent SFA studies. Yes, they conclude the SFA do not harm health, but they were at 15% of calories. I would suspect that many on keto have much higher levels. Heck, I think I am at a much higher level.
I don't see the merits of debating whether an individual is "in keto". One that restricts carbs might find themselves in keto, say 90% of the day, but might fall out of ketogenesis for a small while. In my experience, and involving the simplest definition of ketogenesis, its ONLY the extent of the body's production of ketones to compensate for a lack of dietary or bloodstream carbohydrates. Those ketones go to work on fats and protein and alcohols to produce the sugars we need to fuel our bodies, actually through pretty similar metabolic pathways.
So yeah...everything ends up sugar, and if you're overeating, there will be insulin spikes and glycemic overloads and all those things low carb dieters fear...even if you eat no carbs (try chugging 2 scoops of whey in the morning on keto and then measure insulin...!)
I can understand the argument that negative feedback might result in one getting knocked out of keto because they eat too much protein, but jeez, it'd have to be ALOT of protein.
It's not really an argument. I would pointing out the fallacy that eating more than 100g of pro would cause one to come out of ketosis and not receive the benefits of a ketogenic diet. The studies just don't support that. So it's more broscience than anything else.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
TEF shouldn't be included in "calorie burns" though. That's majoring in the minors. How many people eat 250 grams of protein a day anyway unless they are doing keto? And when burning calories for physical activity, does the body resort amino acids or energy from carbs (glycogen) first?Russellb97 wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »I will backtrack a bit by saying that not every calorie is equal.
There's the thermic effect of food (250 grams of protein burns about 250 more calories than 250 grams of sugar)
They also vary in nutrition, fullness, and effect on hormones.
But weight-loss can be had with any type of food/calorie
A calorie is a unit of measurement - the "amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere". You're mixing up a unit of measurement with food.
No I'm not.
250 grams of protein is approx. 1000 calories protein. It has a TEF of 30-35%, which means for those 1,000 calories "IN" your body will expend about 300-350 calories to metabolize them.
For the same amount of carbs, it would expend about 60
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
Most people eating much over 100 grams of protein daily will be knocked out of ketosis. Keto is NOT a high protein WOE because about half of protein can become glucose like sugar becomes.
It would take a lot more than 100g to knock someone out of Ketosis. And if people restricted themselves to that level of protein, most of people following the diet would be losing a lot of muscle (at least the males) because that won't even remotely address the requirements for many.
One thing I've noticed is that many ketoers freak out over protein, many of them aim for the bare minimum.
Which I find often funny because keto is pushed as muscle sparring based on a lot of research. But that research all has protein as higher levels (often 30% of calories or more). So it would further support the protein doesn't push you out of ketosis as easily. And whats worse, if you have inadequate protein, you would not only increase the chance of muscle loss and a slower metabolic, but you would also negate any potential increase to EE from keto.
It's why I always say, if you dont' follow a diet like it's described in the studies, you can't expect the results. It was a big argument I had the recent SFA studies. Yes, they conclude the SFA do not harm health, but they were at 15% of calories. I would suspect that many on keto have much higher levels. Heck, I think I am at a much higher level.
I don't see the merits of debating whether an individual is "in keto". One that restricts carbs might find themselves in keto, say 90% of the day, but might fall out of ketogenesis for a small while. In my experience, and involving the simplest definition of ketogenesis, its ONLY the extent of the body's production of ketones to compensate for a lack of dietary or bloodstream carbohydrates. Those ketones go to work on fats and protein and alcohols to produce the sugars we need to fuel our bodies, actually through pretty similar metabolic pathways.
So yeah...everything ends up sugar, and if you're overeating, there will be insulin spikes and glycemic overloads and all those things low carb dieters fear...even if you eat no carbs (try chugging 2 scoops of whey in the morning on keto and then measure insulin...!)
I can understand the argument that negative feedback might result in one getting knocked out of keto because they eat too much protein, but jeez, it'd have to be ALOT of protein.
It's not really an argument. I would pointing out the fallacy that eating more than 100g of pro would cause one to come out of ketosis and not receive the benefits of a ketogenic diet. The studies just don't support that. So it's more broscience than anything else.
It's not even broscience, as that stuff at least usually has a lot of anecdotal evidence behind it. It's something far worse: wisdom from the mouths of quacks.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »CICO based on TDEE does succeed. Proven over and over. No one denies the equation can be tweaked based on many things, but very few fail to see results doing CICO, and doing it correctly. Look in the success forum. Almost ever person posting there for the last years have a basis of CICO, then many tweak or make enhancements that fit them. Read the scientific papers on CICO. While some other adjusted CICO diets have been seen to provided additional benefits or loss, the basic CICO control groups ALWAYS loses weight, with no fan fare.
Except CICO <> Calorie counting, which is really what you are talking about. CICO is the underlying reason people lose weight regardless of their method. Calorie counting is the method MFP is based on.
Erm, how do you determine your calories in (CI) and calories out (CO) without counting calories?
You don't have to determine it to make CICO work for you (although I think counting makes it a lot easier). You could use a method that might help you reach a deficit without counting -- like reducing carbohydrates or IF or a thousand other different plans.
When they work, they work because they help someone consume less than they're burning.
Counting calories is one way -- I think a really reliable way -- to achieve a deficit. But it isn't the only way.
pretty much this. I calorie counted for a long time and it taught to know, roughly, how many calories to consume. I have not logged or weighed in the past six months and I have not gained a pound. I will say that when one is at goal weight that it becomes harder to lose more and get leaner without calorie counting.
This is my ultimate goal. But every time I've tried to stop counting, I start gaining. I just don't know if I'll ever be able to stop counting calories and maintain or lose weight.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »You don't have to determine it to make CICO work for you (although I think counting makes it a lot easier). You could use a method that might help you reach a deficit without counting -- like reducing carbohydrates or IF or a thousand other different plans.
When they work, they work because they help someone consume less than they're burning.
Counting calories is one way -- I think a really reliable way -- to achieve a deficit. But it isn't the only way.
Eat less, move more is CICO, but we digress to semantics here. While it might not be the statistical mathematical documented way, it is still following the the CICO equation and math of calorie deficit to lose weight.
Whether counting calories to the piece of gum you chew, or "knowing" you need to eat less and move more without ever logging a single calories, the underlying equation of CICO is in effect.
The thread spins off from there.
Optimal health...
1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
TEF shouldn't be included in "calorie burns" though. That's majoring in the minors. How many people eat 250 grams of protein a day anyway unless they are doing keto? And when burning calories for physical activity, does the body resort amino acids or energy from carbs (glycogen) first?Russellb97 wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »I will backtrack a bit by saying that not every calorie is equal.
There's the thermic effect of food (250 grams of protein burns about 250 more calories than 250 grams of sugar)
They also vary in nutrition, fullness, and effect on hormones.
But weight-loss can be had with any type of food/calorie
A calorie is a unit of measurement - the "amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere". You're mixing up a unit of measurement with food.
No I'm not.
250 grams of protein is approx. 1000 calories protein. It has a TEF of 30-35%, which means for those 1,000 calories "IN" your body will expend about 300-350 calories to metabolize them.
For the same amount of carbs, it would expend about 60
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
Most people eating much over 100 grams of protein daily will be knocked out of ketosis. Keto is NOT a high protein WOE because about half of protein can become glucose like sugar becomes.
It would take a lot more than 100g to knock someone out of Ketosis. And if people restricted themselves to that level of protein, most of people following the diet would be losing a lot of muscle (at least the males) because that won't even remotely address the requirements for many.
One thing I've noticed is that many ketoers freak out over protein, many of them aim for the bare minimum.
Which I find often funny because keto is pushed as muscle sparring based on a lot of research. But that research all has protein as higher levels (often 30% of calories or more). So it would further support the protein doesn't push you out of ketosis as easily. And whats worse, if you have inadequate protein, you would not only increase the chance of muscle loss and a slower metabolic, but you would also negate any potential increase to EE from keto.
It's why I always say, if you dont' follow a diet like it's described in the studies, you can't expect the results. It was a big argument I had the recent SFA studies. Yes, they conclude the SFA do not harm health, but they were at 15% of calories. I would suspect that many on keto have much higher levels. Heck, I think I am at a much higher level.
I don't see the merits of debating whether an individual is "in keto". One that restricts carbs might find themselves in keto, say 90% of the day, but might fall out of ketogenesis for a small while. In my experience, and involving the simplest definition of ketogenesis, its ONLY the extent of the body's production of ketones to compensate for a lack of dietary or bloodstream carbohydrates. Those ketones go to work on fats and protein and alcohols to produce the sugars we need to fuel our bodies, actually through pretty similar metabolic pathways.
So yeah...everything ends up sugar, and if you're overeating, there will be insulin spikes and glycemic overloads and all those things low carb dieters fear...even if you eat no carbs (try chugging 2 scoops of whey in the morning on keto and then measure insulin...!)
I can understand the argument that negative feedback might result in one getting knocked out of keto because they eat too much protein, but jeez, it'd have to be ALOT of protein.
It's not really an argument. I would pointing out the fallacy that eating more than 100g of pro would cause one to come out of ketosis and not receive the benefits of a ketogenic diet. The studies just don't support that. So it's more broscience than anything else.
From what I've read, protein starts affecting ketosis, if people who are not bulking, at well over 200g per day. Most people aren't going to hit that, and even if they do, it appears to just affect ketosis somewhat, and not prevent it entirely.
I don't think most keto'ers are paranoid about protein levels... More that they see no need to force it high. Moderate protein is fine and it is where most sit. 15-25% is pretty common for people who are not overly active.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »You don't have to determine it to make CICO work for you (although I think counting makes it a lot easier). You could use a method that might help you reach a deficit without counting -- like reducing carbohydrates or IF or a thousand other different plans.
When they work, they work because they help someone consume less than they're burning.
Counting calories is one way -- I think a really reliable way -- to achieve a deficit. But it isn't the only way.
Eat less, move more is CICO, but we digress to semantics here. While it might not be the statistical mathematical documented way, it is still following the the CICO equation and math of calorie deficit to lose weight.
Whether counting calories to the piece of gum you chew, or "knowing" you need to eat less and move more without ever logging a single calories, the underlying equation of CICO is in effect.
The thread spins off from there.
Optimal health...
This was my train of thought. I didn't get a chance to look into those diets suggested by Tacklewasher last night but my immediate reaction is that both Atkins and Weight Watchers are a form of calorie counting, just codified or colourized to simplify the process.
2 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »This was my train of thought.
For sure.
I've done both, and had both success and failure at both. Like another poster mentioned, I tend to go off logging from August through January 1 and still mentally moderate intake, but I also plan for the 10lb holiday cheer. Then I usually start logging but really only for a visual representation of what I mostly already know (I tend to eat the same foods and same amounts of them).
0 -
It's not really an argument. I would pointing out the fallacy that eating more than 100g of pro would cause one to come out of ketosis and not receive the benefits of a ketogenic diet. The studies just don't support that. So it's more broscience than anything else.
From what I've read, protein starts affecting ketosis, if people who are not bulking, at well over 200g per day. Most people aren't going to hit that, and even if they do, it appears to just affect ketosis somewhat, and not prevent it entirely.
I don't think most keto'ers are paranoid about protein levels... More that they see no need to force it high. Moderate protein is fine and it is where most sit. 15-25% is pretty common for people who are not overly active.
It's possible that there are more vocal members on the main board when it comes to protein and often see pushes around 20%. My argument, if one is to be had, is 20% may not be an appropriate amount depending on the phase they are in and the amount of calories being consumed. On my low carb days, I am a roughly around 30-35% (~1g per lb of weight).
Protein is even more important in sedentary individuals during weight loss.1 -
Why do people get so angry over what works for others? We each have to find what works for us. I know what works for me and would never expect my husband to do the same thing. He is unique as we all are.0
-
-
VintageFeline wrote: »Out of interest how are you guys sure you're still in ketosis?
Are you using (less reliable) urine testing strips?
Or testing blood ketones with a monitor and finger pricks?
Or going by how you feel, or breath acetone analysis? Just curious.
For the first few days I get headaches if I'm not careful about salt intake, and I get low level headaches throughout if I'm again not careful. When eating "normally" for me, headaches are never an issue. I also pee more with the same fluid intake (especially so the first 24 hours) and my breath is.....different, hard to explain! I'm actually not overly fussed about being in ketosis so that's why I don't test in any way. It's just a byproduct of the cutting method being used.
Okay, I understand following body cues (mine were distinct when I was doing keto) but it's a stretch to say 'no effect on ketosis' when you basing the assessment on how you feel, not actual data.Indygirl_81 wrote: »I agree with the OP... CICO is not the end on be all for everyone. I can eat less calories than I expend but if they are loaded with carbs, I will gain- this is because of medical conditions. To those who don't have these, you don't understand that it does affect weight loss.... thank you OP!
Which medical condition leads to the creation of bodyfat in a calorie deficit?
Hop on to nearly any hypothyroid discussion. There are a committed community that believe this despite all evidence to the contrary.
In untreated hypothyroidism the weight gain is complex and multifaceted but not related to a simple calorie deficit derived from food, rather a lowered basal metabolic rate neutralizing or negating reductions of caloric input as the CO is reduced.
Sure a 'deficit' would relate to weigh loss but achieving that deficit is harder to do. People find they eat and move the same but can't create a loss due to the basal metabolic rate being negatively affected by the impaired thyroid function.
Metabolic rate is affected by many things such as age, gender, size, temperature, medications, hormones etc ... thyroid hormones are intricately tied to metabolism.
.................
The root cause of the complexity lies with obesity. Hormones are free cycling, so simply being overweight inhibits hormonal balance as the increase in tissue lessens the chance of the hormones finding receptor sites. The best course of action is to lose weight in a safe responsible manner through a caloric deficit and moderate exercise.
REE is reduced by ~5% based on diagnostic evidence and this is on patients moving from a full thyroid panel in the normal range to complete withdrawal from hormone supplementation. So a person with a calculated maintenance of 2000 kcals/day would then need to reduce this to 1900 kcals/day. 100 kcals/day difference.
What many actually experience is a shift in satiety factors and hunger signals, which causes hypothyroid patients to eat more.
Changes in hormone response secondary to obesity is a complicating factor for some.
However, there are many who gain weight gain/difficulty losing from hypothyroidism who are not obese but just a little overweight so that bunch of complications has no impact. Many are talking about 5kg, not 35kg etc
......
The effect (in calories) regarding the deficit change needed to counter the change in metabolic rate second to hypothyroidism would surely depend on an individual's degree of hormonal dysfunction and the big picture off their overall metabolic rate.
This makes calculation on CI:CO some difficult as the CO part of the equation is impacted by the (height weight age gender) data put into the mfp computer as well as 'estimated' activity level, variables such as temperate, medication, genetics and hormonal implications.
You can measure CI, but CO is always going to be an estimate and untreated hypothyroidism and subsequent effect on metabolic rate, to relative degrees will be a variable in that estimate.
The general statement "hypothyroidism is linked to weight gain" creates a lot of trouble as it is too general. A decrease in hormone activity will cause weight gain - water weight via increased cellular absorption. What I see on MFP frequently are statements such as "I never changed my eating habits and suddenly put on 85 lbs in three months".
The other problem are old school methods still lingering in endocrinology texts such as the "hypothyroidism may cause 5-40% decrease in metabolism". The origin of this is based on patient weight gain, with no monitoring of CI or CO, just how much weight an individual gained. Clinical research has proven that REE only varies by ~5% +/- 3 sigma values. I did this in 2015 and went from 175/200 mcg Synthroid to nothing for 30 days and only saw a 5% decrease in REE.0 -
I don't think people are angry either. This thread has actually been quite civil and thought provoking, IMO.
6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 897 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions