Clearly CICO has no bearing on my recent weight loss
Options
Replies
-
Dude, you've beaten this horse to death multiple times in various versions on multiple threads. It is majoring in the minors and makes little practical difference in application. Maybe you want give it a rest? KWIM?
I just went into a big spill as to why it is not a minor thing. Why not refute what I said with some substance instead of just being dismissive. I keep coming back supporting this because people keep coming back saying it makes no difference and don't provide much counter arguments to what I've said.
Because even when you are provided data, you ignore it. Like 42% of that increase EE was from GNG and the rest was increases in protein. And then you ignore context, like the people at 0% carbs and did glycogen depleting work outs. Again, you ignored that piece. You'd rather cherry-pick tidbits of information to support your notion.
If you remember the study you just mentioned was about LC and not IF which is what I was just posting about. Your on the wrong topic!
Nah bro. It was on GNG because I read it multiple times. Obviously, you only read the abstract.
It was about GNG but not in the context of fasting.
I know that. It was also 0% carbs and glycogen depleting workouts. Not exactly aligned to a normal diet and exercise routine. But keep ignoring those parts.
I added the IF stuff because its a meta analysis which evaluates human and animal models. So the benefits in mice arent being found in humans when compared to normal calorie restricted diets.
I'm talking about IF, why do you keep ignoring that? Energy equations apply equally to mice and men! The only way that wouldn't be true with the mice study is if the fasting made the mice excrete more of the food they ate and they didn't metabolize it compared to the mice that didn't fast.
You obviously didnt read the link. And again, your dumb article didnt link the study. But again, keep thinking that the mice model had adequate controls.
You totally ignore the example I just gave and didn't discuss the reasoning at all.
Here you go: https://www.nature.com/articles/cr2017126
There are many more good references to support positive effects of IF and LC in the just reference article.
It compared a restricted IF model vs AL model in mice. How does ome studied that doesnt really controll calories or have macronutrient breakouts found in humans compare to several metaanalysis? You do understand the priority of research right? If you dont human model meta analysis > single mouse study.
But hey, more power if you want to put all of your eggs in one basket.
They did control calories. I'm not saying IF or LC makes a huge difference but it makes some. 10%, 15%, I don't know but it isn't zero.
Except the KH studies and other studies prove otherwise. The only studies that show a difference are where protein is increased. So again, please provide human models, especially when protein is held constant.1 -
Dude, you've beaten this horse to death multiple times in various versions on multiple threads. It is majoring in the minors and makes little practical difference in application. Maybe you want give it a rest? KWIM?
I just went into a big spill as to why it is not a minor thing. Why not refute what I said with some substance instead of just being dismissive. I keep coming back supporting this because people keep coming back saying it makes no difference and don't provide much counter arguments to what I've said.
Because even when you are provided data, you ignore it. Like 42% of that increase EE was from GNG and the rest was increases in protein. And then you ignore context, like the people at 0% carbs and did glycogen depleting work outs. Again, you ignored that piece. You'd rather cherry-pick tidbits of information to support your notion.
If you remember the study you just mentioned was about LC and not IF which is what I was just posting about. Your on the wrong topic!
Nah bro. It was on GNG because I read it multiple times. Obviously, you only read the abstract.
It was about GNG but not in the context of fasting.
I know that. It was also 0% carbs and glycogen depleting workouts. Not exactly aligned to a normal diet and exercise routine. But keep ignoring those parts.
I added the IF stuff because its a meta analysis which evaluates human and animal models. So the benefits in mice arent being found in humans when compared to normal calorie restricted diets.
I'm talking about IF, why do you keep ignoring that? Energy equations apply equally to mice and men! The only way that wouldn't be true with the mice study is if the fasting made the mice excrete more of the food they ate and they didn't metabolize it compared to the mice that didn't fast.
You obviously didnt read the link. And again, your dumb article didnt link the study. But again, keep thinking that the mice model had adequate controls.
You totally ignore the example I just gave and didn't discuss the reasoning at all.
Here you go: https://www.nature.com/articles/cr2017126
There are many more good references to support positive effects of IF and LC in the just reference article.
It compared a restricted IF model vs AL model in mice. How does ome studied that doesnt really controll calories or have macronutrient breakouts found in humans compare to several metaanalysis? You do understand the priority of research right? If you dont human model meta analysis > single mouse study.
But hey, more power if you want to put all of your eggs in one basket.
There have been a whole bunch of mouse studies, as well as human studies, which demonstrate that calories in the mouth don't equal calories in. I don't think anyone who is a scientist seriously disputes that. The question is how much of an effect different factors have, and the answer seems to be, for most people, that it doesn't really matter since calories in the mouth is really the only factor we understand enough to influence.0 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Dude, you've beaten this horse to death multiple times in various versions on multiple threads. It is majoring in the minors and makes little practical difference in application. Maybe you want give it a rest? KWIM?
I just went into a big spill as to why it is not a minor thing. Why not refute what I said with some substance instead of just being dismissive. I keep coming back supporting this because people keep coming back saying it makes no difference and don't provide much counter arguments to what I've said.
Because even when you are provided data, you ignore it. Like 42% of that increase EE was from GNG and the rest was increases in protein. And then you ignore context, like the people at 0% carbs and did glycogen depleting work outs. Again, you ignored that piece. You'd rather cherry-pick tidbits of information to support your notion.
If you remember the study you just mentioned was about LC and not IF which is what I was just posting about. Your on the wrong topic!
Nah bro. It was on GNG because I read it multiple times. Obviously, you only read the abstract.
It was about GNG but not in the context of fasting.
I know that. It was also 0% carbs and glycogen depleting workouts. Not exactly aligned to a normal diet and exercise routine. But keep ignoring those parts.
I added the IF stuff because its a meta analysis which evaluates human and animal models. So the benefits in mice arent being found in humans when compared to normal calorie restricted diets.
I'm talking about IF, why do you keep ignoring that? Energy equations apply equally to mice and men! The only way that wouldn't be true with the mice study is if the fasting made the mice excrete more of the food they ate and they didn't metabolize it compared to the mice that didn't fast.
You obviously didnt read the link. And again, your dumb article didnt link the study. But again, keep thinking that the mice model had adequate controls.
You totally ignore the example I just gave and didn't discuss the reasoning at all.
Here you go: https://www.nature.com/articles/cr2017126
There are many more good references to support positive effects of IF and LC in the just reference article.
It compared a restricted IF model vs AL model in mice. How does ome studied that doesnt really controll calories or have macronutrient breakouts found in humans compare to several metaanalysis? You do understand the priority of research right? If you dont human model meta analysis > single mouse study.
But hey, more power if you want to put all of your eggs in one basket.
There have been a whole bunch of mouse studies, as well as human studies, which demonstrate that calories in the mouth don't equal calories in. I don't think anyone who is a scientist seriously disputes that. The question is how much of an effect different factors have, and the answer seems to be, for most people, that it doesn't really matter since calories in the mouth is really the only factor we understand enough to influence.
Interestingly enough, the KH review on CICO is staying just that. CI = food metabolized into energy, which is influenced by several individual factors.
But like you said, we have a limited amount to detail to be able to measure and use, which is why the law of averages works.1 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Dude, you've beaten this horse to death multiple times in various versions on multiple threads. It is majoring in the minors and makes little practical difference in application. Maybe you want give it a rest? KWIM?
I just went into a big spill as to why it is not a minor thing. Why not refute what I said with some substance instead of just being dismissive. I keep coming back supporting this because people keep coming back saying it makes no difference and don't provide much counter arguments to what I've said.
Because even when you are provided data, you ignore it. Like 42% of that increase EE was from GNG and the rest was increases in protein. And then you ignore context, like the people at 0% carbs and did glycogen depleting work outs. Again, you ignored that piece. You'd rather cherry-pick tidbits of information to support your notion.
If you remember the study you just mentioned was about LC and not IF which is what I was just posting about. Your on the wrong topic!
Nah bro. It was on GNG because I read it multiple times. Obviously, you only read the abstract.
It was about GNG but not in the context of fasting.
I know that. It was also 0% carbs and glycogen depleting workouts. Not exactly aligned to a normal diet and exercise routine. But keep ignoring those parts.
I added the IF stuff because its a meta analysis which evaluates human and animal models. So the benefits in mice arent being found in humans when compared to normal calorie restricted diets.
I'm talking about IF, why do you keep ignoring that? Energy equations apply equally to mice and men! The only way that wouldn't be true with the mice study is if the fasting made the mice excrete more of the food they ate and they didn't metabolize it compared to the mice that didn't fast.
You obviously didnt read the link. And again, your dumb article didnt link the study. But again, keep thinking that the mice model had adequate controls.
You totally ignore the example I just gave and didn't discuss the reasoning at all.
Here you go: https://www.nature.com/articles/cr2017126
There are many more good references to support positive effects of IF and LC in the just reference article.
It compared a restricted IF model vs AL model in mice. How does ome studied that doesnt really controll calories or have macronutrient breakouts found in humans compare to several metaanalysis? You do understand the priority of research right? If you dont human model meta analysis > single mouse study.
But hey, more power if you want to put all of your eggs in one basket.
There have been a whole bunch of mouse studies, as well as human studies, which demonstrate that calories in the mouth don't equal calories in. I don't think anyone who is a scientist seriously disputes that. The question is how much of an effect different factors have, and the answer seems to be, for most people, that it doesn't really matter since calories in the mouth is really the only factor we understand enough to influence.
Interestingly enough, the KH review on CICO is staying just that. CI = food metabolized into energy, which is influenced by several individual factors.
But like you said, we have a limited amount to detail to be able to measure and use, which is why the law of averages works.
The law of averages works because it is a conservative estimate. Saying the cars get the same gas mileage in the example I gave is a conservative estimate (the car will use at least x amount of gas) but in reality, 8% more is used in the second example (or more like 6% total). When I talk about non-linearities, I'm talking about the bodies dynamics and how it handles different macros and different feeding times and amounts and not the inputs and outputs (CICO) to/from the system. Instantaneous rates and quantities of the inputs/outputs of a system matter for non-linear systems which in reality, all system are non-linear.1 -
Very interesting article. Says muscle mass protected by IF verses daily calorie restriction (without IF) with mice. Does say that some studies haven't shown weight loss to be greater with IF verse daily calorie restriction (in humans) but also says that the studies may not be controlled great. Does show with mice those doing some form of fasting that they produce much more keytones vs those that don't fast.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/oby.22065/full
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 951 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions