Clearly CICO has no bearing on my recent weight loss
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.
Those things are in cico. We've told you many times before. Yet you come back and keep saying the same thing as if previous discussions never happened.
Egads those things are not in CICO.
CICO assumes CI in the mouth are all used for something which they are not. It also assumes that 100% of the caloric energy from fat is utilized to meet the bodies energy needs which it can't (it may make the body hotter when metabolized but it wasn't required to to meet any energy demand). CICO is a conservative model (for calculating deficits) by making these assumptions. If you stick to CICO, you should succeed because it is a conservative model. That doesn't mean you can't do better than CICO predicts and that things like LC or IF don't matter. I apologize to the OP for this big tangent. I'm done talking about this here.
Maybe you should take the time and read the information i posted by Kevin Hall. CI refers to the metabolized components of food.
I lied, I came back. It matters who you talk to what is included and what is not. A lot of folks here who say things like LC or IF make NO difference are obviously not including just the metabolized components, they are including every single calorie consumed. It is a matter of semantics I think that causes these debates.
Its a matter of the studies which prove you wrong. When you equate for protein and calories, there is no difference. Your theories over the years have yet to be proven.6 -
stevencloser wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.
Those things are in cico. We've told you many times before. Yet you come back and keep saying the same thing as if previous discussions never happened.
Egads those things are not in CICO.
CICO assumes CI in the mouth are all used for something which they are not. It also assumes that 100% of the caloric energy from fat is utilized to meet the bodies energy needs which it can't (it may make the body hotter when metabolized but it wasn't required to to meet any energy demand). CICO is a conservative model (for calculating deficits) by making these assumptions. If you stick to CICO, you should succeed because it is a conservative model. That doesn't mean you can't do better than CICO predicts and that things like LC or IF don't matter. I apologize to the OP for this big tangent. I'm done talking about this here.
Maybe you should take the time and read the information i posted by Kevin Hall. CI refers to the metabolized components of food.
I lied, I came back. It matters who you talk to what is included and what is not. A lot of folks here who say things like LC or IF make NO difference are obviously not including just the metabolized components, they are including every single calorie consumed. It is a matter of semantics I think that causes these debates.
After reading through the posts of this thread you do not seem to be engaging with content and cites that have been provided to you. You just appear to be performing rhetorical gymnastics to soap box for your pet fringe belief. While this is certainly not the first time and I am sure not the last I will see such a display here at the forums, I highly doubt you will be successful in convincing anyone except perhaps yourself.9 -
stevencloser wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.
Those things are in cico. We've told you many times before. Yet you come back and keep saying the same thing as if previous discussions never happened.
Egads those things are not in CICO.
CICO assumes CI in the mouth are all used for something which they are not. It also assumes that 100% of the caloric energy from fat is utilized to meet the bodies energy needs which it can't (it may make the body hotter when metabolized but it wasn't required to to meet any energy demand). CICO is a conservative model (for calculating deficits) by making these assumptions. If you stick to CICO, you should succeed because it is a conservative model. That doesn't mean you can't do better than CICO predicts and that things like LC or IF don't matter. I apologize to the OP for this big tangent. I'm done talking about this here.
Maybe you should take the time and read the information i posted by Kevin Hall. CI refers to the metabolized components of food.
I lied, I came back. It matters who you talk to what is included and what is not. A lot of folks here who say things like LC or IF make NO difference are obviously not including just the metabolized components, they are including every single calorie consumed. It is a matter of semantics I think that causes these debates.
Its a matter of the studies which prove you wrong. When you equate for protein and calories, there is no difference. Your theories over the years have yet to be proven.
The body is very complex obviously. Someone could just do the calculations, irrespective of studies, and show how much energy is required to digest certain food and how much is required to produce ketones and glucose from fat. Then it would be easy to see that based on timing of eating and what you eat, it will make a difference. The studies have so many confounding variable that confuse things. This problem can be tackled by just analysis alone to show that what and when will make a difference. 67% efficiency for gluconeogenis and probably 90+ % efficiency for digesting consumed glucose and what you eat makes no difference. It doesn't pass an analysis sanity check that those things make no difference.
11 -
stevencloser wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.
Those things are in cico. We've told you many times before. Yet you come back and keep saying the same thing as if previous discussions never happened.
Egads those things are not in CICO.
CICO assumes CI in the mouth are all used for something which they are not. It also assumes that 100% of the caloric energy from fat is utilized to meet the bodies energy needs which it can't (it may make the body hotter when metabolized but it wasn't required to to meet any energy demand). CICO is a conservative model (for calculating deficits) by making these assumptions. If you stick to CICO, you should succeed because it is a conservative model. That doesn't mean you can't do better than CICO predicts and that things like LC or IF don't matter. I apologize to the OP for this big tangent. I'm done talking about this here.
Maybe you should take the time and read the information i posted by Kevin Hall. CI refers to the metabolized components of food.
I lied, I came back. It matters who you talk to what is included and what is not. A lot of folks here who say things like LC or IF make NO difference are obviously not including just the metabolized components, they are including every single calorie consumed. It is a matter of semantics I think that causes these debates.
Its a matter of the studies which prove you wrong. When you equate for protein and calories, there is no difference. Your theories over the years have yet to be proven.
The body is very complex obviously. Someone could just do the calculations, irrespective of studies, and show how much energy is required to digest certain food and how much is required to produce ketones and glucose from fat. Then it would be easy to see that based on timing of eating and what you eat, it will make a difference. The studies have so many confounding variable that confuse things. This problem can be tackled by just analysis alone to show that what and when will make a difference. 67% efficiency for gluconeogenis and probably 90+ % efficiency for digesting consumed glucose and what you eat makes no difference. It doesn't pass an analysis sanity check that those things make no difference.
Dude, your own glucenogenisis study was a joke. Its showed an 11 calorie increase in EE, of which they alluded to 65% of that increase from increased protein.
None of this disproves CICO. At best you can only say that there is no way to calculate CICO. Except you can use law of averages which is good enough. I have done it repeatedly. I know i maintain at about 3k.8 -
stevencloser wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.
Those things are in cico. We've told you many times before. Yet you come back and keep saying the same thing as if previous discussions never happened.
Egads those things are not in CICO.
CICO assumes CI in the mouth are all used for something which they are not. It also assumes that 100% of the caloric energy from fat is utilized to meet the bodies energy needs which it can't (it may make the body hotter when metabolized but it wasn't required to to meet any energy demand). CICO is a conservative model (for calculating deficits) by making these assumptions. If you stick to CICO, you should succeed because it is a conservative model. That doesn't mean you can't do better than CICO predicts and that things like LC or IF don't matter. I apologize to the OP for this big tangent. I'm done talking about this here.
Oh, and: CICO doesn't calculate calorie deficits, either. CICO is just the energy balance equation.
The modern calorie counting approach to weight loss (a different thing from CICO) as instantiated in MFP? That relies on estimating a calorie deficit - predicting it, if you prefer. MFP relies on research-based formulas, formulas that estimate daily calorie needs, to make that deficit estimate.
It's a known and understood thing that these are estimates, and that individuals' actual calorie needs may vary (sometimes significantly) from the estimates.
In that context - where these are all formula-driven estimates - it's irrelevant (especially as a practical matter!) what happens to every single calorie consumed. The model is based on estimates and probabilities, not on pinning down the metabolic destiny of every actual calorie consumed.5 -
Thank goodness for that. You have beaten this horse to death both here and in other threads. You major in the minors focusing on things that make a negligible difference at best. Heck, logging errors and exercise burn inaccuracies are more significant than these minor details of net calories based on things like digestion.stevencloser wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.
Those things are in cico. We've told you many times before. Yet you come back and keep saying the same thing as if previous discussions never happened.
Egads those things are not in CICO.
CICO assumes CI in the mouth are all used for something which they are not. It also assumes that 100% of the caloric energy from fat is utilized to meet the bodies energy needs which it can't (it may make the body hotter when metabolized but it wasn't required to to meet any energy demand). CICO is a conservative model (for calculating deficits) by making these assumptions. If you stick to CICO, you should succeed because it is a conservative model. That doesn't mean you can't do better than CICO predicts and that things like LC or IF don't matter. I apologize to the OP for this big tangent. I'm done talking about this here.
7 -
I knew a person that once lost 30 pounds while eating whatever he wanted. CICO is a lie, just like his phantom limb pain!
CICO isn't a lie, we all obey thermodynamics, CICO just isn't the whole energy equation. CO really needs a clear definition. Excretion isn't part of the CICO equation but there are some calories lost that way.
This might help you: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/95/4/989
CICO is an representation of EE. People's misinterpretations of that doesn't make it any less relevant.
Great link, thanks for sharing that.
0 -
Newgoals1966 wrote: »OP here! My God people, these petty jabs and righteous posts leaves me to see that each and every one of you needs to pick up a newspaper and read about what is going on in the world - you know, beyond a life or death need to be right on this worn out subject!
While I have a firm grasp of Physics, I posted because even after meticulous measuring of food and documenting exercise weekly, I only managed to see an 8 pound loss of weight after getting rid of gluten. And yeah, while you can lose weight with a CICO mindset while living on processed meats and junky sugar laden cakes and cookies, I wanted to express how efficiently my body is letting go of the excess fat with one basic and healthy change.
And for all of you who will go red-faced at the mere mention of going gluten free, have at it - as for me, I know that my blood pressure is now an impressive 109/76 today, whereas five weeks ago it was a good 20 points higher. My arms and thighs have dropped an inch, my waist is down multiple inches and my face has never looked better or clearer.
So all the defenders of the almighty CICO theory, keep up the petty squabbling - because it will surely bring change! For those interested in feeling a decade younger and/or dropping the thick middle, giving up gluten worked wonders for me and may very well for you too.
Can I get you a glass of apple cider vinegar to wash that woo down with?4 -
Newgoals1966 wrote: »For those interested in feeling a decade younger and/or dropping the thick middle, giving up gluten worked wonders for me and may very well for you too.
Ummmmm, no giving up gluten here, just a calorie deficit.
Not only do I feel a decade younger, I am a decade older- and no thick middle.
(Sorry all those who know me, I just had to
)
Cheers, h.14 -
middlehaitch wrote: »Newgoals1966 wrote: »For those interested in feeling a decade younger and/or dropping the thick middle, giving up gluten worked wonders for me and may very well for you too.
Ummmmm, no giving up gluten here, just a calorie deficit.
Not only do I feel a decade younger, I am a decade older- and no thick middle.
(Sorry all those who know me, I just had to )
Cheers, h.
Wow, not only do you look fabulous, but...I WANT THAT DRESS!!
And for the record, I gave up gluten 7 years ago when I was diagnosed with celiac, I am at the very lower end of my healthy BMI range, and I still have a thick middle, because genetics.8 -
AnnPT77 "metabolic destiny of every actual calorie consumed"
My new all-time favourite quote on MFP3 -
stevencloser wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.
Those things are in cico. We've told you many times before. Yet you come back and keep saying the same thing as if previous discussions never happened.
Egads those things are not in CICO.
CICO assumes CI in the mouth are all used for something which they are not. It also assumes that 100% of the caloric energy from fat is utilized to meet the bodies energy needs which it can't (it may make the body hotter when metabolized but it wasn't required to to meet any energy demand). CICO is a conservative model (for calculating deficits) by making these assumptions. If you stick to CICO, you should succeed because it is a conservative model. That doesn't mean you can't do better than CICO predicts and that things like LC or IF don't matter. I apologize to the OP for this big tangent. I'm done talking about this here.
Maybe you should take the time and read the information i posted by Kevin Hall. CI refers to the metabolized components of food.
I lied, I came back. It matters who you talk to what is included and what is not. A lot of folks here who say things like LC or IF make NO difference are obviously not including just the metabolized components, they are including every single calorie consumed. It is a matter of semantics I think that causes these debates.
Its a matter of the studies which prove you wrong. When you equate for protein and calories, there is no difference. Your theories over the years have yet to be proven.
The body is very complex obviously. Someone could just do the calculations, irrespective of studies, and show how much energy is required to digest certain food and how much is required to produce ketones and glucose from fat. Then it would be easy to see that based on timing of eating and what you eat, it will make a difference. The studies have so many confounding variable that confuse things. This problem can be tackled by just analysis alone to show that what and when will make a difference. 67% efficiency for gluconeogenis and probably 90+ % efficiency for digesting consumed glucose and what you eat makes no difference. It doesn't pass an analysis sanity check that those things make no difference.
Dude, your own glucenogenisis study was a joke. Its showed an 11 calorie increase in EE, of which they alluded to 65% of that increase from increased protein.
None of this disproves CICO. At best you can only say that there is no way to calculate CICO. Except you can use law of averages which is good enough. I have done it repeatedly. I know i maintain at about 3k.
It didn't show 11 calorie increase:
On average, in the H condition, 26 g extra glucose was produced through gluconeogenesis that resulted in an increase in EE of 0.144 MJ. The increase in EE after the H diet compared with the N diet was 0.340 ± 0.132 MJ. Thus, the contribution of increased gluconeogenesis to increased EE was 42%. Because the energy content of 26 g glucose is 0.442 MJ, the energy cost to produce glucose through gluconeogenesis was 33% of the energy content of glucose (95% CI: 16%, 50%).
That's about a 100cal difference. Again for the umteenth time, I've stated IF and LC make SOME difference. I think it is significant (100 cals isn't in the noise and this didn't include IF). I don't know for sure how much a difference it makes but this study makes an attempt at quantifying that. The beef I have is when people on here say it makes NO difference (you should really state you THINK it makes LITTLE difference and you might be correct but you are wrong to say it make NO difference). The difference ISN"T ZERO. How big a difference is TBD.
People shouldn't also get wigged out thinking I'm attacking CICO which I'm not. I've said numerous times that CICO is a worst case estimate (conservative estimate) for gains and losses and if you abide by it, you will get at least those losses and no more than the gains it predicts and to the extent of the difference IF/LC make, the loss or gain will be a little lower than what CICO predicts. I don't think what I've said is that difficult to understand so I don't know why people have an issue with it. Peoples attitude that nothing makes a difference squelches investigation as to how much a difference those things may make.6 -
Newgoals1966 wrote: »OP here! My God people, these petty jabs and righteous posts leaves me to see that each and every one of you needs to pick up a newspaper and read about what is going on in the world - you know, beyond a life or death need to be right on this worn out subject!
While I have a firm grasp of Physics, I posted because even after meticulous measuring of food and documenting exercise weekly, I only managed to see an 8 pound loss of weight after getting rid of gluten. And yeah, while you can lose weight with a CICO mindset while living on processed meats and junky sugar laden cakes and cookies, I wanted to express how efficiently my body is letting go of the excess fat with one basic and healthy change.
And for all of you who will go red-faced at the mere mention of going gluten free, have at it - as for me, I know that my blood pressure is now an impressive 109/76 today, whereas five weeks ago it was a good 20 points higher. My arms and thighs have dropped an inch, my waist is down multiple inches and my face has never looked better or clearer.
So all the defenders of the almighty CICO theory, keep up the petty squabbling - because it will surely bring change! For those interested in feeling a decade younger and/or dropping the thick middle, giving up gluten worked wonders for me and may very well for you too.
That's nice. Be sure to come back in a year with an open diary and let us see how you've gone on your All-You-Can-Eat, Gluten-Free, Paranormal Diet.
5 -
stevencloser wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.
Those things are in cico. We've told you many times before. Yet you come back and keep saying the same thing as if previous discussions never happened.
Egads those things are not in CICO.
CICO assumes CI in the mouth are all used for something which they are not. It also assumes that 100% of the caloric energy from fat is utilized to meet the bodies energy needs which it can't (it may make the body hotter when metabolized but it wasn't required to to meet any energy demand). CICO is a conservative model (for calculating deficits) by making these assumptions. If you stick to CICO, you should succeed because it is a conservative model. That doesn't mean you can't do better than CICO predicts and that things like LC or IF don't matter. I apologize to the OP for this big tangent. I'm done talking about this here.
Maybe you should take the time and read the information i posted by Kevin Hall. CI refers to the metabolized components of food.
I lied, I came back. It matters who you talk to what is included and what is not. A lot of folks here who say things like LC or IF make NO difference are obviously not including just the metabolized components, they are including every single calorie consumed. It is a matter of semantics I think that causes these debates.
Its a matter of the studies which prove you wrong. When you equate for protein and calories, there is no difference. Your theories over the years have yet to be proven.
The body is very complex obviously. Someone could just do the calculations, irrespective of studies, and show how much energy is required to digest certain food and how much is required to produce ketones and glucose from fat. Then it would be easy to see that based on timing of eating and what you eat, it will make a difference. The studies have so many confounding variable that confuse things. This problem can be tackled by just analysis alone to show that what and when will make a difference. 67% efficiency for gluconeogenis and probably 90+ % efficiency for digesting consumed glucose and what you eat makes no difference. It doesn't pass an analysis sanity check that those things make no difference.
Dude, your own glucenogenisis study was a joke. Its showed an 11 calorie increase in EE, of which they alluded to 65% of that increase from increased protein.
None of this disproves CICO. At best you can only say that there is no way to calculate CICO. Except you can use law of averages which is good enough. I have done it repeatedly. I know i maintain at about 3k.
It didn't show 11 calorie increase:
On average, in the H condition, 26 g extra glucose was produced through gluconeogenesis that resulted in an increase in EE of 0.144 MJ. The increase in EE after the H diet compared with the N diet was 0.340 ± 0.132 MJ. Thus, the contribution of increased gluconeogenesis to increased EE was 42%. Because the energy content of 26 g glucose is 0.442 MJ, the energy cost to produce glucose through gluconeogenesis was 33% of the energy content of glucose (95% CI: 16%, 50%).
That's about a 100cal difference. Again for the umteenth time, I've stated IF and LC make SOME difference. I think it is significant (100 cals isn't in the noise and this didn't include IF). I don't know for sure how much a difference it makes but this study makes an attempt at quantifying that. The beef I have is when people on here say it makes NO difference (you should really state you THINK it makes LITTLE difference and you might be correct but you are wrong to say it make NO difference). The difference ISN"T ZERO. How big a difference is TBD.
People shouldn't also get wigged out thinking I'm attacking CICO which I'm not. I've said numerous times that CICO is a worst case estimate (conservative estimate) for gains and losses and if you abide by it, you will get at least those losses and no more than the gains it predicts and to the extent of the difference IF/LC make, the loss or gain will be a little lower than what CICO predicts. I don't think what I've said is that difficult to understand so I don't know why people have an issue with it. Peoples attitude that nothing makes a difference squelches investigation as to how much a difference those things may make.
Except your study didn't measure the differences in protein intake, they estimated it based on some values from other studies that KH did. So only a small portion of the increased EE was contributed to GNG.. Most of the estimated EE was due to an increase in protein intake, and only of which the participates ate 0% carbs (which is unlikely in a real life situation), while eating 171g of protein (in which most low carbers/ketoers won't do) and all while following a glycogen depletion workout (which again, has very little application.
The bigger difference aren't related to IF/LC... they are related to protein content. When equating for calories, high protein diets have always shown an improvement in weight loss and metabolism. When you equate for protein and calories, there is no difference. So your predictions just haven't been shown. The high protein ones have been demonstrated time and time again.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.
Those things are in cico. We've told you many times before. Yet you come back and keep saying the same thing as if previous discussions never happened.
Egads those things are not in CICO.
CICO assumes CI in the mouth are all used for something which they are not. It also assumes that 100% of the caloric energy from fat is utilized to meet the bodies energy needs which it can't (it may make the body hotter when metabolized but it wasn't required to to meet any energy demand). CICO is a conservative model (for calculating deficits) by making these assumptions. If you stick to CICO, you should succeed because it is a conservative model. That doesn't mean you can't do better than CICO predicts and that things like LC or IF don't matter. I apologize to the OP for this big tangent. I'm done talking about this here.
Maybe you should take the time and read the information i posted by Kevin Hall. CI refers to the metabolized components of food.
I lied, I came back. It matters who you talk to what is included and what is not. A lot of folks here who say things like LC or IF make NO difference are obviously not including just the metabolized components, they are including every single calorie consumed. It is a matter of semantics I think that causes these debates.
Its a matter of the studies which prove you wrong. When you equate for protein and calories, there is no difference. Your theories over the years have yet to be proven.
The body is very complex obviously. Someone could just do the calculations, irrespective of studies, and show how much energy is required to digest certain food and how much is required to produce ketones and glucose from fat. Then it would be easy to see that based on timing of eating and what you eat, it will make a difference. The studies have so many confounding variable that confuse things. This problem can be tackled by just analysis alone to show that what and when will make a difference. 67% efficiency for gluconeogenis and probably 90+ % efficiency for digesting consumed glucose and what you eat makes no difference. It doesn't pass an analysis sanity check that those things make no difference.
Dude, your own glucenogenisis study was a joke. Its showed an 11 calorie increase in EE, of which they alluded to 65% of that increase from increased protein.
None of this disproves CICO. At best you can only say that there is no way to calculate CICO. Except you can use law of averages which is good enough. I have done it repeatedly. I know i maintain at about 3k.
It didn't show 11 calorie increase:
On average, in the H condition, 26 g extra glucose was produced through gluconeogenesis that resulted in an increase in EE of 0.144 MJ. The increase in EE after the H diet compared with the N diet was 0.340 ± 0.132 MJ. Thus, the contribution of increased gluconeogenesis to increased EE was 42%. Because the energy content of 26 g glucose is 0.442 MJ, the energy cost to produce glucose through gluconeogenesis was 33% of the energy content of glucose (95% CI: 16%, 50%).
That's about a 100cal difference. Again for the umteenth time, I've stated IF and LC make SOME difference. I think it is significant (100 cals isn't in the noise and this didn't include IF). I don't know for sure how much a difference it makes but this study makes an attempt at quantifying that. The beef I have is when people on here say it makes NO difference (you should really state you THINK it makes LITTLE difference and you might be correct but you are wrong to say it make NO difference). The difference ISN"T ZERO. How big a difference is TBD.
People shouldn't also get wigged out thinking I'm attacking CICO which I'm not. I've said numerous times that CICO is a worst case estimate (conservative estimate) for gains and losses and if you abide by it, you will get at least those losses and no more than the gains it predicts and to the extent of the difference IF/LC make, the loss or gain will be a little lower than what CICO predicts. I don't think what I've said is that difficult to understand so I don't know why people have an issue with it. Peoples attitude that nothing makes a difference squelches investigation as to how much a difference those things may make.
Except your study didn't measure the differences in protein intake, they estimated it based on some values from other studies that KH did. So only a small portion of the increased EE was contributed to GNG.. Most of the estimated EE was due to an increase in protein intake, and only of which the participates ate 0% carbs (which is unlikely in a real life situation), while eating 171g of protein (in which most low carbers/ketoers won't do) and all while following a glycogen depletion workout (which again, has very little application.
The bigger difference aren't related to IF/LC... they are related to protein content. When equating for calories, high protein diets have always shown an improvement in weight loss and metabolism. When you equate for protein and calories, there is no difference. So your predictions just haven't been shown. The high protein ones have been demonstrated time and time again.
The results said 26g more of gluconeogenesis. I don't believe that was due to the protein intake. That was separate from the protein effects which was additional EE.
Bottom line, you just stated what I've been stating, that what you eat does matter.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.
Those things are in cico. We've told you many times before. Yet you come back and keep saying the same thing as if previous discussions never happened.
Egads those things are not in CICO.
CICO assumes CI in the mouth are all used for something which they are not. It also assumes that 100% of the caloric energy from fat is utilized to meet the bodies energy needs which it can't (it may make the body hotter when metabolized but it wasn't required to to meet any energy demand). CICO is a conservative model (for calculating deficits) by making these assumptions. If you stick to CICO, you should succeed because it is a conservative model. That doesn't mean you can't do better than CICO predicts and that things like LC or IF don't matter. I apologize to the OP for this big tangent. I'm done talking about this here.
Maybe you should take the time and read the information i posted by Kevin Hall. CI refers to the metabolized components of food.
I lied, I came back. It matters who you talk to what is included and what is not. A lot of folks here who say things like LC or IF make NO difference are obviously not including just the metabolized components, they are including every single calorie consumed. It is a matter of semantics I think that causes these debates.
Its a matter of the studies which prove you wrong. When you equate for protein and calories, there is no difference. Your theories over the years have yet to be proven.
The body is very complex obviously. Someone could just do the calculations, irrespective of studies, and show how much energy is required to digest certain food and how much is required to produce ketones and glucose from fat. Then it would be easy to see that based on timing of eating and what you eat, it will make a difference. The studies have so many confounding variable that confuse things. This problem can be tackled by just analysis alone to show that what and when will make a difference. 67% efficiency for gluconeogenis and probably 90+ % efficiency for digesting consumed glucose and what you eat makes no difference. It doesn't pass an analysis sanity check that those things make no difference.
Dude, your own glucenogenisis study was a joke. Its showed an 11 calorie increase in EE, of which they alluded to 65% of that increase from increased protein.
None of this disproves CICO. At best you can only say that there is no way to calculate CICO. Except you can use law of averages which is good enough. I have done it repeatedly. I know i maintain at about 3k.
It didn't show 11 calorie increase:
On average, in the H condition, 26 g extra glucose was produced through gluconeogenesis that resulted in an increase in EE of 0.144 MJ. The increase in EE after the H diet compared with the N diet was 0.340 ± 0.132 MJ. Thus, the contribution of increased gluconeogenesis to increased EE was 42%. Because the energy content of 26 g glucose is 0.442 MJ, the energy cost to produce glucose through gluconeogenesis was 33% of the energy content of glucose (95% CI: 16%, 50%).
That's about a 100cal difference. Again for the umteenth time, I've stated IF and LC make SOME difference. I think it is significant (100 cals isn't in the noise and this didn't include IF). I don't know for sure how much a difference it makes but this study makes an attempt at quantifying that. The beef I have is when people on here say it makes NO difference (you should really state you THINK it makes LITTLE difference and you might be correct but you are wrong to say it make NO difference). The difference ISN"T ZERO. How big a difference is TBD.
People shouldn't also get wigged out thinking I'm attacking CICO which I'm not. I've said numerous times that CICO is a worst case estimate (conservative estimate) for gains and losses and if you abide by it, you will get at least those losses and no more than the gains it predicts and to the extent of the difference IF/LC make, the loss or gain will be a little lower than what CICO predicts. I don't think what I've said is that difficult to understand so I don't know why people have an issue with it. Peoples attitude that nothing makes a difference squelches investigation as to how much a difference those things may make.
Except your study didn't measure the differences in protein intake, they estimated it based on some values from other studies that KH did. So only a small portion of the increased EE was contributed to GNG.. Most of the estimated EE was due to an increase in protein intake, and only of which the participates ate 0% carbs (which is unlikely in a real life situation), while eating 171g of protein (in which most low carbers/ketoers won't do) and all while following a glycogen depletion workout (which again, has very little application.
The bigger difference aren't related to IF/LC... they are related to protein content. When equating for calories, high protein diets have always shown an improvement in weight loss and metabolism. When you equate for protein and calories, there is no difference. So your predictions just haven't been shown. The high protein ones have been demonstrated time and time again.
The results said 26g more of gluconeogenesis. I don't believe that was due to the protein intake. That was separate from the protein effects which was additional EE.
Bottom line, you just stated what I've been stating, that what you eat does matter.
If what we are eating is protein, it does matter. But IF and LC have nothing to do with that. And if you look at your study, it does point out that the increase in EE was only 42% from GNG (so at best 40 calories).1 -
stevencloser wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.
Those things are in cico. We've told you many times before. Yet you come back and keep saying the same thing as if previous discussions never happened.
Egads those things are not in CICO.
CICO assumes CI in the mouth are all used for something which they are not. It also assumes that 100% of the caloric energy from fat is utilized to meet the bodies energy needs which it can't (it may make the body hotter when metabolized but it wasn't required to to meet any energy demand). CICO is a conservative model (for calculating deficits) by making these assumptions. If you stick to CICO, you should succeed because it is a conservative model. That doesn't mean you can't do better than CICO predicts and that things like LC or IF don't matter. I apologize to the OP for this big tangent. I'm done talking about this here.
Maybe you should take the time and read the information i posted by Kevin Hall. CI refers to the metabolized components of food.
I lied, I came back. It matters who you talk to what is included and what is not. A lot of folks here who say things like LC or IF make NO difference are obviously not including just the metabolized components, they are including every single calorie consumed. It is a matter of semantics I think that causes these debates.
Its a matter of the studies which prove you wrong. When you equate for protein and calories, there is no difference. Your theories over the years have yet to be proven.
The body is very complex obviously. Someone could just do the calculations, irrespective of studies, and show how much energy is required to digest certain food and how much is required to produce ketones and glucose from fat. Then it would be easy to see that based on timing of eating and what you eat, it will make a difference. The studies have so many confounding variable that confuse things. This problem can be tackled by just analysis alone to show that what and when will make a difference. 67% efficiency for gluconeogenis and probably 90+ % efficiency for digesting consumed glucose and what you eat makes no difference. It doesn't pass an analysis sanity check that those things make no difference.
Dude, your own glucenogenisis study was a joke. Its showed an 11 calorie increase in EE, of which they alluded to 65% of that increase from increased protein.
None of this disproves CICO. At best you can only say that there is no way to calculate CICO. Except you can use law of averages which is good enough. I have done it repeatedly. I know i maintain at about 3k.
It didn't show 11 calorie increase:
On average, in the H condition, 26 g extra glucose was produced through gluconeogenesis that resulted in an increase in EE of 0.144 MJ. The increase in EE after the H diet compared with the N diet was 0.340 ± 0.132 MJ. Thus, the contribution of increased gluconeogenesis to increased EE was 42%. Because the energy content of 26 g glucose is 0.442 MJ, the energy cost to produce glucose through gluconeogenesis was 33% of the energy content of glucose (95% CI: 16%, 50%).
That's about a 100cal difference. Again for the umteenth time, I've stated IF and LC make SOME difference. I think it is significant (100 cals isn't in the noise and this didn't include IF). I don't know for sure how much a difference it makes but this study makes an attempt at quantifying that. The beef I have is when people on here say it makes NO difference (you should really state you THINK it makes LITTLE difference and you might be correct but you are wrong to say it make NO difference). The difference ISN"T ZERO. How big a difference is TBD.
People shouldn't also get wigged out thinking I'm attacking CICO which I'm not. I've said numerous times that CICO is a worst case estimate (conservative estimate) for gains and losses and if you abide by it, you will get at least those losses and no more than the gains it predicts and to the extent of the difference IF/LC make, the loss or gain will be a little lower than what CICO predicts. I don't think what I've said is that difficult to understand so I don't know why people have an issue with it. Peoples attitude that nothing makes a difference squelches investigation as to how much a difference those things may make.
Except your study didn't measure the differences in protein intake, they estimated it based on some values from other studies that KH did. So only a small portion of the increased EE was contributed to GNG.. Most of the estimated EE was due to an increase in protein intake, and only of which the participates ate 0% carbs (which is unlikely in a real life situation), while eating 171g of protein (in which most low carbers/ketoers won't do) and all while following a glycogen depletion workout (which again, has very little application.
The bigger difference aren't related to IF/LC... they are related to protein content. When equating for calories, high protein diets have always shown an improvement in weight loss and metabolism. When you equate for protein and calories, there is no difference. So your predictions just haven't been shown. The high protein ones have been demonstrated time and time again.
The results said 26g more of gluconeogenesis. I don't believe that was due to the protein intake. That was separate from the protein effects which was additional EE.
Bottom line, you just stated what I've been stating, that what you eat does matter.
If what we are eating is protein, it does matter. But IF and LC have nothing to do with that. And if you look at your study, it does point out that the increase in EE was only 42% from GNG (so at best 40 calories).
I don't think the extra gluconeogenisis was due to the protein diet. It was due to the lack of carbs. I think that
is the correct interpretation so it would be about 100kcals difference. LC and IF will result in more gluconeogenisis due to being in a state of low carb consumption so this study is applicable to those two things.2 -
@blambo61 in thread after thread like this, you state that you agree that CICO works and that you aren't trying to disprove it, you seem to be saying that it's possible to go above and beyond the rate of loss someone would get from just the basic calorie deficit if they follow IF and/or a LCHF diet. People keep telling you that any additional benefits would either be negligible, or temporary, or just not be worth the extra effort if someone doesn't enjoy doing IF or eating LC. You disagree and keep touting studies about glucogenesis, in the past, if I recall, it was TEF and excretion you were focusing on.
My question is, what have your results been, since clearly you're so passionate about dialing in your results to maximize every potential fraction of a calorie burn. How long have you been on your weight loss journey? How much weight did you have to lose? How much have you lost and in what time period? Is the loss consistent from week to week?
I assume since you're so focused on the details that you've been holding protein and other variables constant, so that you really can prove that these things matter.... so what have your results been so far? Are you losing at 1.5 lbs/week instead of a predicted 1 lb/week? 1.25 lb/week? 1.1 lb/week? You keep saying the advantage is not insignificant, but I would like to see it expressed in how much extra a person could lose in the same time period so people can assess whether the extra trouble is worth going to or not.
Thanks in advance for sharing the results of your experiment!3 -
stevencloser wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.
Those things are in cico. We've told you many times before. Yet you come back and keep saying the same thing as if previous discussions never happened.
Egads those things are not in CICO.
CICO assumes CI in the mouth are all used for something which they are not. It also assumes that 100% of the caloric energy from fat is utilized to meet the bodies energy needs which it can't (it may make the body hotter when metabolized but it wasn't required to to meet any energy demand). CICO is a conservative model (for calculating deficits) by making these assumptions. If you stick to CICO, you should succeed because it is a conservative model. That doesn't mean you can't do better than CICO predicts and that things like LC or IF don't matter. I apologize to the OP for this big tangent. I'm done talking about this here.
Maybe you should take the time and read the information i posted by Kevin Hall. CI refers to the metabolized components of food.
I lied, I came back. It matters who you talk to what is included and what is not. A lot of folks here who say things like LC or IF make NO difference are obviously not including just the metabolized components, they are including every single calorie consumed. It is a matter of semantics I think that causes these debates.
Its a matter of the studies which prove you wrong. When you equate for protein and calories, there is no difference. Your theories over the years have yet to be proven.
The body is very complex obviously. Someone could just do the calculations, irrespective of studies, and show how much energy is required to digest certain food and how much is required to produce ketones and glucose from fat. Then it would be easy to see that based on timing of eating and what you eat, it will make a difference. The studies have so many confounding variable that confuse things. This problem can be tackled by just analysis alone to show that what and when will make a difference. 67% efficiency for gluconeogenis and probably 90+ % efficiency for digesting consumed glucose and what you eat makes no difference. It doesn't pass an analysis sanity check that those things make no difference.
Dude, your own glucenogenisis study was a joke. Its showed an 11 calorie increase in EE, of which they alluded to 65% of that increase from increased protein.
None of this disproves CICO. At best you can only say that there is no way to calculate CICO. Except you can use law of averages which is good enough. I have done it repeatedly. I know i maintain at about 3k.
It didn't show 11 calorie increase:
On average, in the H condition, 26 g extra glucose was produced through gluconeogenesis that resulted in an increase in EE of 0.144 MJ. The increase in EE after the H diet compared with the N diet was 0.340 ± 0.132 MJ. Thus, the contribution of increased gluconeogenesis to increased EE was 42%. Because the energy content of 26 g glucose is 0.442 MJ, the energy cost to produce glucose through gluconeogenesis was 33% of the energy content of glucose (95% CI: 16%, 50%).
That's about a 100cal difference. Again for the umteenth time, I've stated IF and LC make SOME difference. I think it is significant (100 cals isn't in the noise and this didn't include IF). I don't know for sure how much a difference it makes but this study makes an attempt at quantifying that. The beef I have is when people on here say it makes NO difference (you should really state you THINK it makes LITTLE difference and you might be correct but you are wrong to say it make NO difference). The difference ISN"T ZERO. How big a difference is TBD.
People shouldn't also get wigged out thinking I'm attacking CICO which I'm not. I've said numerous times that CICO is a worst case estimate (conservative estimate) for gains and losses and if you abide by it, you will get at least those losses and no more than the gains it predicts and to the extent of the difference IF/LC make, the loss or gain will be a little lower than what CICO predicts. I don't think what I've said is that difficult to understand so I don't know why people have an issue with it. Peoples attitude that nothing makes a difference squelches investigation as to how much a difference those things may make.
Except your study didn't measure the differences in protein intake, they estimated it based on some values from other studies that KH did. So only a small portion of the increased EE was contributed to GNG.. Most of the estimated EE was due to an increase in protein intake, and only of which the participates ate 0% carbs (which is unlikely in a real life situation), while eating 171g of protein (in which most low carbers/ketoers won't do) and all while following a glycogen depletion workout (which again, has very little application.
The bigger difference aren't related to IF/LC... they are related to protein content. When equating for calories, high protein diets have always shown an improvement in weight loss and metabolism. When you equate for protein and calories, there is no difference. So your predictions just haven't been shown. The high protein ones have been demonstrated time and time again.
The results said 26g more of gluconeogenesis. I don't believe that was due to the protein intake. That was separate from the protein effects which was additional EE.
Bottom line, you just stated what I've been stating, that what you eat does matter.
If what we are eating is protein, it does matter. But IF and LC have nothing to do with that. And if you look at your study, it does point out that the increase in EE was only 42% from GNG (so at best 40 calories).
I don't think the extra gluconeogenisis was due to the protein diet. It was due to the lack of carbs. I think that
is the correct interpretation so it would be about 100kcals difference. LC and IF will result in more gluconeogenisis due to being in a state of low carb consumption so this study is applicable to those two things.
They forced gng due to depleting glycogen and not eating carbs. It used protein to convert to glycogen. It does so as a protective mechanism to ensure a fuel is provided. This does not occur unless it has to. No difference the the body creating SFA from carbs.
Ideally, they would have controlled calories and protein to not induce a thermogenic effect from protein. But they didnt. This was merely a investigative study. And without controlling for the additional variables, it can only be hypothesized. Also, they clearly state several times that not all of the EE ia from GNG.
Ultimately, the application is not there. Most people consume some level of carba which will store as glycogen in the liver or muscles. But even if you do get some effect, why would you want protein to convert to glucose?
ETA: "In conclusion, increased gluconeogenesis contributes to increased EE after consumption of an H diet for 1.5 d following a decrease in body glycogen stores. Forty-two percent of the increase in EE after the H diet was explained by an increase in gluconeogenesis. The energy cost of gluconeogenesis was 33% of the energy content of glucose?
And "The energy costs of protein synthesis and protein breakdown have been estimated from theoretical values to be 3.6 and 0.7 kJ/g, respectively. Nevertheless, they have not actually been measured, and the contribution of these pathways to increased EE with a high-protein diet requires further study. Previously, it has been shown from a theoretical perspective that an increased demand on protein and amino acid turnover for gluconeogenesis by a low-carbohydrate diet increases EE"2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »@blambo61 in thread after thread like this, you state that you agree that CICO works and that you aren't trying to disprove it, you seem to be saying that it's possible to go above and beyond the rate of loss someone would get from just the basic calorie deficit if they follow IF and/or a LCHF diet. People keep telling you that any additional benefits would either be negligible, or temporary, or just not be worth the extra effort if someone doesn't enjoy doing IF or eating LC. You disagree and keep touting studies about glucogenesis, in the past, if I recall, it was TEF and excretion you were focusing on.
My question is, what have your results been, since clearly you're so passionate about dialing in your results to maximize every potential fraction of a calorie burn. How long have you been on your weight loss journey? How much weight did you have to lose? How much have you lost and in what time period? Is the loss consistent from week to week?
I assume since you're so focused on the details that you've been holding protein and other variables constant, so that you really can prove that these things matter.... so what have your results been so far? Are you losing at 1.5 lbs/week instead of a predicted 1 lb/week? 1.25 lb/week? 1.1 lb/week? You keep saying the advantage is not insignificant, but I would like to see it expressed in how much extra a person could lose in the same time period so people can assess whether the extra trouble is worth going to or not.
Thanks in advance for sharing the results of your experiment!
The study I just posted looks like LC makes about 100kcal difference a day due to LC for the people the experiment was run on. IF wasn't addressed which I think would be an even bigger contribution.
If both were done and it resulted in a 200-300 kcal/day difference, would that not be significant?
My BMR is supposed to be about 2000kcal/day (by impedance measurements and by MFP predictions) or about 90-kcal/hr. If I do a 20:4 IF, I imagine that I'm doing gluconeogenisis about 16-hrs of that time. That would be about 90x16 cals produced that way (some of the cals I'm running on would be keytones also so the numbers for gluconeogensis wouldn't be that high but I'm sure there is some inneficiencies producing those also) which is about 1440kcals. 33% of that number is about 480kcals/day (losses due to inefficiencies). Someone eating a high carb continuous diet would be performing gluconeogenesis for a much shorter time, maybe 4-hrs at the end of their sleep so the difference between these extremes could be about 360kcals/day. That is a ball park estimate for just IF. LC combined would make the time in gluconeogenis even longer by about 4-hrs in this example so both together could be back to about 480kcals/day. None of this addresses rate and saturation limits on properly digesting the food consumed during a 4-hr eating window which could even further increase a deficit. Those are significant numbers.
My main point is, a lot of people say it makes NO difference which flies in the face of any reasoning. That attitude stifles looking into the magnitude of the differences it makes. I don't know how much a difference it makes but I do know the difference is not ZERO. Anyone who thinks that does not have a basic understanding of thermodynamics. You can't take electricity, do electrolysis with it, take the hydrogen and oxygen produced with the electrolysis, burn it to turn a steam turbine and end up with the same amount of electrical energy you started with! There are losses. Going from food to fat to glucose results in losses. 33% losses according to the study I provided.
People lump all these other effects into BMR which is in error. They will calculate CI the mouth, energy expenditures and calculate BMR from that. The example of the diabetic shows that is the wrong approach because they don't aborb food (without insulin) and it is excreted. Their basal metabolic needs didn't use those calories up. Same with losses from gluconeogenisis, they may make your body hotter, but they were not used up from an an external energy demand from the body and would not be necessary if carbs where present.
My experience won't prove anything, but I have lost at a greater rate than what MFP predicted. I lost about 45-lbs in 5-months. I did count calories and by the BMR estimate I was given and the exercise and steps I did, I lost about 1-lb more/week than it said I should. There are MANY more people, some I read about today even, that did detailed calorie counting for a long time and plateaued then started a 5:2 IF diet and started losing while continuing the counting as they had done before. That doesn't necessarily prove anything either since it wasn't a controlled experiment, but there is tons of antecdotal evidence, which may indicate causality. I maintained for 1.5 years after the initial weight loss and now I've lost 13-lbs in the last 8 weeks after going back on my 20:4 IF diet. I maintained on a 16:8 IF diet. I eat ad libitum in the evenings and I don't count calories very much. I probably eat about 2000-2400kcal/day (mostly 2400/day) based on the few days I have counted. I run 4xweek for about 20-miles/week. My estimated TDEE is 2700kcal/day (I have a smart gps watch that gives me steps and running estimates - I do run hills once a week which it will underestimate). For the last 8-wks my average loss is 1.62-lbs/week which would require a minimum of an 810kcal deficit/day (my losses were 2-lbs week except for two of the weeks I didn't keep the diet everyday due to a marriage in the family and some other circumstances). There is no way I'm eating only 1900 kcals/day on the average guaranteed! For me, there is an unexplained difference of about 300kcal or more/day which coincides well with my gestimate above. When I was at 2-lbs loss/day (doing IF everyday), the unexplained difference was about 300-700kcal/day.
I don't have a problem with people saying they think the factors mentioned are insignificant (TBD) but I do have a problem when they say they don't exist.
4 -
stevencloser wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.
Those things are in cico. We've told you many times before. Yet you come back and keep saying the same thing as if previous discussions never happened.
Egads those things are not in CICO.
CICO assumes CI in the mouth are all used for something which they are not. It also assumes that 100% of the caloric energy from fat is utilized to meet the bodies energy needs which it can't (it may make the body hotter when metabolized but it wasn't required to to meet any energy demand). CICO is a conservative model (for calculating deficits) by making these assumptions. If you stick to CICO, you should succeed because it is a conservative model. That doesn't mean you can't do better than CICO predicts and that things like LC or IF don't matter. I apologize to the OP for this big tangent. I'm done talking about this here.
They are in CICO. The calorie counts on packages that everyone knows of 4 calories for a gram of carbs, 4 for protein and 9 for fat are not actually "what is in the food" but already normalized to be how much is actually available to the human body.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.
Those things are in cico. We've told you many times before. Yet you come back and keep saying the same thing as if previous discussions never happened.
Egads those things are not in CICO.
CICO assumes CI in the mouth are all used for something which they are not. It also assumes that 100% of the caloric energy from fat is utilized to meet the bodies energy needs which it can't (it may make the body hotter when metabolized but it wasn't required to to meet any energy demand). CICO is a conservative model (for calculating deficits) by making these assumptions. If you stick to CICO, you should succeed because it is a conservative model. That doesn't mean you can't do better than CICO predicts and that things like LC or IF don't matter. I apologize to the OP for this big tangent. I'm done talking about this here.
Maybe you should take the time and read the information i posted by Kevin Hall. CI refers to the metabolized components of food.
I lied, I came back. It matters who you talk to what is included and what is not. A lot of folks here who say things like LC or IF make NO difference are obviously not including just the metabolized components, they are including every single calorie consumed. It is a matter of semantics I think that causes these debates.
Its a matter of the studies which prove you wrong. When you equate for protein and calories, there is no difference. Your theories over the years have yet to be proven.
The body is very complex obviously. Someone could just do the calculations, irrespective of studies, and show how much energy is required to digest certain food and how much is required to produce ketones and glucose from fat. Then it would be easy to see that based on timing of eating and what you eat, it will make a difference. The studies have so many confounding variable that confuse things. This problem can be tackled by just analysis alone to show that what and when will make a difference. 67% efficiency for gluconeogenis and probably 90+ % efficiency for digesting consumed glucose and what you eat makes no difference. It doesn't pass an analysis sanity check that those things make no difference.
Dude, your own glucenogenisis study was a joke. Its showed an 11 calorie increase in EE, of which they alluded to 65% of that increase from increased protein.
None of this disproves CICO. At best you can only say that there is no way to calculate CICO. Except you can use law of averages which is good enough. I have done it repeatedly. I know i maintain at about 3k.
It didn't show 11 calorie increase:
On average, in the H condition, 26 g extra glucose was produced through gluconeogenesis that resulted in an increase in EE of 0.144 MJ. The increase in EE after the H diet compared with the N diet was 0.340 ± 0.132 MJ. Thus, the contribution of increased gluconeogenesis to increased EE was 42%. Because the energy content of 26 g glucose is 0.442 MJ, the energy cost to produce glucose through gluconeogenesis was 33% of the energy content of glucose (95% CI: 16%, 50%).
That's about a 100cal difference. Again for the umteenth time, I've stated IF and LC make SOME difference. I think it is significant (100 cals isn't in the noise and this didn't include IF). I don't know for sure how much a difference it makes but this study makes an attempt at quantifying that. The beef I have is when people on here say it makes NO difference (you should really state you THINK it makes LITTLE difference and you might be correct but you are wrong to say it make NO difference). The difference ISN"T ZERO. How big a difference is TBD.
People shouldn't also get wigged out thinking I'm attacking CICO which I'm not. I've said numerous times that CICO is a worst case estimate (conservative estimate) for gains and losses and if you abide by it, you will get at least those losses and no more than the gains it predicts and to the extent of the difference IF/LC make, the loss or gain will be a little lower than what CICO predicts. I don't think what I've said is that difficult to understand so I don't know why people have an issue with it. Peoples attitude that nothing makes a difference squelches investigation as to how much a difference those things may make.
Except your study didn't measure the differences in protein intake, they estimated it based on some values from other studies that KH did. So only a small portion of the increased EE was contributed to GNG.. Most of the estimated EE was due to an increase in protein intake, and only of which the participates ate 0% carbs (which is unlikely in a real life situation), while eating 171g of protein (in which most low carbers/ketoers won't do) and all while following a glycogen depletion workout (which again, has very little application.
The bigger difference aren't related to IF/LC... they are related to protein content. When equating for calories, high protein diets have always shown an improvement in weight loss and metabolism. When you equate for protein and calories, there is no difference. So your predictions just haven't been shown. The high protein ones have been demonstrated time and time again.
The results said 26g more of gluconeogenesis. I don't believe that was due to the protein intake. That was separate from the protein effects which was additional EE.
Bottom line, you just stated what I've been stating, that what you eat does matter.
If what we are eating is protein, it does matter. But IF and LC have nothing to do with that. And if you look at your study, it does point out that the increase in EE was only 42% from GNG (so at best 40 calories).
I don't think the extra gluconeogenisis was due to the protein diet. It was due to the lack of carbs. I think that
is the correct interpretation so it would be about 100kcals difference. LC and IF will result in more gluconeogenisis due to being in a state of low carb consumption so this study is applicable to those two things.
They forced gng due to depleting glycogen and not eating carbs. It used protein to convert to glycogen. It does so as a protective mechanism to ensure a fuel is provided. This does not occur unless it has to. No difference the the body creating SFA from carbs.
Ideally, they would have controlled calories and protein to not induce a thermogenic effect from protein. But they didnt. This was merely a investigative study. And without controlling for the additional variables, it can only be hypothesized. Also, they clearly state several times that not all of the EE ia from GNG.
Ultimately, the application is not there. Most people consume some level of carba which will store as glycogen in the liver or muscles. But even if you do get some effect, why would you want protein to convert to glucose?
ETA: "In conclusion, increased gluconeogenesis contributes to increased EE after consumption of an H diet for 1.5 d following a decrease in body glycogen stores. Forty-two percent of the increase in EE after the H diet was explained by an increase in gluconeogenesis. The energy cost of gluconeogenesis was 33% of the energy content of glucose?
And "The energy costs of protein synthesis and protein breakdown have been estimated from theoretical values to be 3.6 and 0.7 kJ/g, respectively. Nevertheless, they have not actually been measured, and the contribution of these pathways to increased EE with a high-protein diet requires further study. Previously, it has been shown from a theoretical perspective that an increased demand on protein and amino acid turnover for gluconeogenesis by a low-carbohydrate diet increases EE"
On average, in the H condition, 26 g extra glucose was produced through gluconeogenesis that resulted in an increase in EE of 0.144 MJ. The increase in EE after the H diet compared with the N diet was 0.340 ± 0.132 MJ. Thus, the contribution of increased gluconeogenesis to increased EE was 42%. Because the energy content of 26 g glucose is 0.442 MJ, the energy cost to produce glucose through gluconeogenesis was 33% of the energy content of glucose (95% CI: 16%, 50%).
I think you may be right about the 42% of 26g(104kcal). Still bottom line is GNG was calculated to be 33% inefficient. A 20:4 IF diet will put you in GNG for a long time seems like to me. You may be right about a penalty for IF for using up some muscle but that might be acceptable since fat could be lost at a faster rate.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.
Those things are in cico. We've told you many times before. Yet you come back and keep saying the same thing as if previous discussions never happened.
Egads those things are not in CICO.
CICO assumes CI in the mouth are all used for something which they are not. It also assumes that 100% of the caloric energy from fat is utilized to meet the bodies energy needs which it can't (it may make the body hotter when metabolized but it wasn't required to to meet any energy demand). CICO is a conservative model (for calculating deficits) by making these assumptions. If you stick to CICO, you should succeed because it is a conservative model. That doesn't mean you can't do better than CICO predicts and that things like LC or IF don't matter. I apologize to the OP for this big tangent. I'm done talking about this here.
Maybe you should take the time and read the information i posted by Kevin Hall. CI refers to the metabolized components of food.
I lied, I came back. It matters who you talk to what is included and what is not. A lot of folks here who say things like LC or IF make NO difference are obviously not including just the metabolized components, they are including every single calorie consumed. It is a matter of semantics I think that causes these debates.
Its a matter of the studies which prove you wrong. When you equate for protein and calories, there is no difference. Your theories over the years have yet to be proven.
The body is very complex obviously. Someone could just do the calculations, irrespective of studies, and show how much energy is required to digest certain food and how much is required to produce ketones and glucose from fat. Then it would be easy to see that based on timing of eating and what you eat, it will make a difference. The studies have so many confounding variable that confuse things. This problem can be tackled by just analysis alone to show that what and when will make a difference. 67% efficiency for gluconeogenis and probably 90+ % efficiency for digesting consumed glucose and what you eat makes no difference. It doesn't pass an analysis sanity check that those things make no difference.
Dude, your own glucenogenisis study was a joke. Its showed an 11 calorie increase in EE, of which they alluded to 65% of that increase from increased protein.
None of this disproves CICO. At best you can only say that there is no way to calculate CICO. Except you can use law of averages which is good enough. I have done it repeatedly. I know i maintain at about 3k.
It didn't show 11 calorie increase:
On average, in the H condition, 26 g extra glucose was produced through gluconeogenesis that resulted in an increase in EE of 0.144 MJ. The increase in EE after the H diet compared with the N diet was 0.340 ± 0.132 MJ. Thus, the contribution of increased gluconeogenesis to increased EE was 42%. Because the energy content of 26 g glucose is 0.442 MJ, the energy cost to produce glucose through gluconeogenesis was 33% of the energy content of glucose (95% CI: 16%, 50%).
That's about a 100cal difference. Again for the umteenth time, I've stated IF and LC make SOME difference. I think it is significant (100 cals isn't in the noise and this didn't include IF). I don't know for sure how much a difference it makes but this study makes an attempt at quantifying that. The beef I have is when people on here say it makes NO difference (you should really state you THINK it makes LITTLE difference and you might be correct but you are wrong to say it make NO difference). The difference ISN"T ZERO. How big a difference is TBD.
People shouldn't also get wigged out thinking I'm attacking CICO which I'm not. I've said numerous times that CICO is a worst case estimate (conservative estimate) for gains and losses and if you abide by it, you will get at least those losses and no more than the gains it predicts and to the extent of the difference IF/LC make, the loss or gain will be a little lower than what CICO predicts. I don't think what I've said is that difficult to understand so I don't know why people have an issue with it. Peoples attitude that nothing makes a difference squelches investigation as to how much a difference those things may make.
Except your study didn't measure the differences in protein intake, they estimated it based on some values from other studies that KH did. So only a small portion of the increased EE was contributed to GNG.. Most of the estimated EE was due to an increase in protein intake, and only of which the participates ate 0% carbs (which is unlikely in a real life situation), while eating 171g of protein (in which most low carbers/ketoers won't do) and all while following a glycogen depletion workout (which again, has very little application.
The bigger difference aren't related to IF/LC... they are related to protein content. When equating for calories, high protein diets have always shown an improvement in weight loss and metabolism. When you equate for protein and calories, there is no difference. So your predictions just haven't been shown. The high protein ones have been demonstrated time and time again.
The results said 26g more of gluconeogenesis. I don't believe that was due to the protein intake. That was separate from the protein effects which was additional EE.
Bottom line, you just stated what I've been stating, that what you eat does matter.
If what we are eating is protein, it does matter. But IF and LC have nothing to do with that. And if you look at your study, it does point out that the increase in EE was only 42% from GNG (so at best 40 calories).
I don't think the extra gluconeogenisis was due to the protein diet. It was due to the lack of carbs. I think that
is the correct interpretation so it would be about 100kcals difference. LC and IF will result in more gluconeogenisis due to being in a state of low carb consumption so this study is applicable to those two things.
They forced gng due to depleting glycogen and not eating carbs. It used protein to convert to glycogen. It does so as a protective mechanism to ensure a fuel is provided. This does not occur unless it has to. No difference the the body creating SFA from carbs.
Ideally, they would have controlled calories and protein to not induce a thermogenic effect from protein. But they didnt. This was merely a investigative study. And without controlling for the additional variables, it can only be hypothesized. Also, they clearly state several times that not all of the EE ia from GNG.
Ultimately, the application is not there. Most people consume some level of carba which will store as glycogen in the liver or muscles. But even if you do get some effect, why would you want protein to convert to glucose?
ETA: "In conclusion, increased gluconeogenesis contributes to increased EE after consumption of an H diet for 1.5 d following a decrease in body glycogen stores. Forty-two percent of the increase in EE after the H diet was explained by an increase in gluconeogenesis. The energy cost of gluconeogenesis was 33% of the energy content of glucose?
And "The energy costs of protein synthesis and protein breakdown have been estimated from theoretical values to be 3.6 and 0.7 kJ/g, respectively. Nevertheless, they have not actually been measured, and the contribution of these pathways to increased EE with a high-protein diet requires further study. Previously, it has been shown from a theoretical perspective that an increased demand on protein and amino acid turnover for gluconeogenesis by a low-carbohydrate diet increases EE"
On average, in the H condition, 26 g extra glucose was produced through gluconeogenesis that resulted in an increase in EE of 0.144 MJ. The increase in EE after the H diet compared with the N diet was 0.340 ± 0.132 MJ. Thus, the contribution of increased gluconeogenesis to increased EE was 42%. Because the energy content of 26 g glucose is 0.442 MJ, the energy cost to produce glucose through gluconeogenesis was 33% of the energy content of glucose (95% CI: 16%, 50%).
I think you may be right about the 42% of 26g(104kcal). Still bottom line is GNG was calculated to be 33% inefficient. A 20:4 IF diet will put you in GNG for a long time seems like to me. You may be right about a penalty for IF for using up some muscle but that might be acceptable since fat could be lost at a faster rate.
And any increase in EE will be lost from inability to hit those high protein numbers. And if you can't get adequate protein to support muscle sustainment, your EE will decrease through reductions in BMR.
Through in the fact, that you probably aren't going through glycogen depleting workouts, nor eating 0 carbs, your theoretical numbers are further limiting themselves.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »@blambo61 in thread after thread like this, you state that you agree that CICO works and that you aren't trying to disprove it, you seem to be saying that it's possible to go above and beyond the rate of loss someone would get from just the basic calorie deficit if they follow IF and/or a LCHF diet. People keep telling you that any additional benefits would either be negligible, or temporary, or just not be worth the extra effort if someone doesn't enjoy doing IF or eating LC. You disagree and keep touting studies about glucogenesis, in the past, if I recall, it was TEF and excretion you were focusing on.
My question is, what have your results been, since clearly you're so passionate about dialing in your results to maximize every potential fraction of a calorie burn. How long have you been on your weight loss journey? How much weight did you have to lose? How much have you lost and in what time period? Is the loss consistent from week to week?
I assume since you're so focused on the details that you've been holding protein and other variables constant, so that you really can prove that these things matter.... so what have your results been so far? Are you losing at 1.5 lbs/week instead of a predicted 1 lb/week? 1.25 lb/week? 1.1 lb/week? You keep saying the advantage is not insignificant, but I would like to see it expressed in how much extra a person could lose in the same time period so people can assess whether the extra trouble is worth going to or not.
Thanks in advance for sharing the results of your experiment!
The study I just posted looks like LC makes about 100kcal difference a day due to LC for the people the experiment was run on. IF wasn't addressed which I think would be an even bigger contribution.
If both were done and it resulted in a 200-300 kcal/day difference, would that not be significant?
My BMR is supposed to be about 2000kcal/day (by impedance measurements and by MFP predictions) or about 90-kcal/hr. If I do a 20:4 IF, I imagine that I'm doing gluconeogenisis about 16-hrs of that time. That would be about 90x16 cals produced that way (some of the cals I'm running on would be keytones also so the numbers for gluconeogensis wouldn't be that high but I'm sure there is some inneficiencies producing those also) which is about 1440kcals. 33% of that number is about 480kcals/day (losses due to inefficiencies). Someone eating a high carb continuous diet would be performing gluconeogenesis for a much shorter time, maybe 4-hrs at the end of their sleep so the difference between these extremes could be about 360kcals/day. That is a ball park estimate for just IF. LC combined would make the time in gluconeogenis even longer by about 4-hrs in this example so both together could be back to about 480kcals/day. None of this addresses rate and saturation limits on properly digesting the food consumed during a 4-hr eating window which could even further increase a deficit. Those are significant numbers.
My main point is, a lot of people say it makes NO difference which flies in the face of any reasoning. That attitude stifles looking into the magnitude of the differences it makes. I don't know how much a difference it makes but I do know the difference is not ZERO. Anyone who thinks that does not have a basic understanding of thermodynamics. You can't take electricity, do electrolysis with it, take the hydrogen and oxygen produced with the electrolysis, burn it to turn a steam turbine and end up with the same amount of electrical energy you started with! There are losses. Going from food to fat to glucose results in losses. 33% losses according to the study I provided.
People lump all these other effects into BMR which is in error. They will calculate CI the mouth, energy expenditures and calculate BMR from that. The example of the diabetic shows that is the wrong approach because they don't aborb food (without insulin) and it is excreted. Their basal metabolic needs didn't use those calories up. Same with losses from gluconeogenisis, they may make your body hotter, but they were not used up from an an external energy demand from the body and would not be necessary if carbs where present.
My experience won't prove anything, but I have lost at a greater rate than what MFP predicted. I lost about 45-lbs in 5-months. I did count calories and by the BMR estimate I was given and the exercise and steps I did, I lost about 1-lb more/week than it said I should. There are MANY more people, some I read about today even, that did detailed calorie counting for a long time and plateaued then started a 5:2 IF diet and started losing while continuing the counting as they had done before. That doesn't necessarily prove anything either since it wasn't a controlled experiment, but there is tons of antecdotal evidence, which may indicate causality. I maintained for 1.5 years after the initial weight loss and now I've lost 13-lbs in the last 8 weeks after going back on my 20:4 IF diet. I maintained on a 16:8 IF diet. I eat ad libitum in the evenings and I don't count calories very much. I probably eat about 2000-2400kcal/day (mostly 2400/day) based on the few days I have counted. I run 4xweek for about 20-miles/week. My estimated TDEE is 2700kcal/day (I have a smart gps watch that gives me steps and running estimates - I do run hills once a week which it will underestimate). For the last 8-wks my average loss is 1.62-lbs/week which would require a minimum of an 810kcal deficit/day (my losses were 2-lbs week except for two of the weeks I didn't keep the diet everyday due to a marriage in the family and some other circumstances). There is no way I'm eating only 1900 kcals/day on the average guaranteed! For me, there is an unexplained difference of about 300kcal or more/day which coincides well with my gestimate above. When I was at 2-lbs loss/day (doing IF everyday), the unexplained difference was about 300-700kcal/day.
I don't have a problem with people saying they think the factors mentioned are insignificant (TBD) but I do have a problem when they say they don't exist.
A lot of theory, that isn't backed up by data (since you don't log), and you are trying to extrapolate while you aren't following the conditions of the study (neither protein level not carb level). If any of your theories were true, they would have come out in the KH studies comparing keto vs high sugar/high carb where protein and calorie where held constant.
Don't get me wrong, there are things that influence EE, but it's minuscule and certainly not the 300+ calories you are thinking.3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »@blambo61 in thread after thread like this, you state that you agree that CICO works and that you aren't trying to disprove it, you seem to be saying that it's possible to go above and beyond the rate of loss someone would get from just the basic calorie deficit if they follow IF and/or a LCHF diet. People keep telling you that any additional benefits would either be negligible, or temporary, or just not be worth the extra effort if someone doesn't enjoy doing IF or eating LC. You disagree and keep touting studies about glucogenesis, in the past, if I recall, it was TEF and excretion you were focusing on.
My question is, what have your results been, since clearly you're so passionate about dialing in your results to maximize every potential fraction of a calorie burn. How long have you been on your weight loss journey? How much weight did you have to lose? How much have you lost and in what time period? Is the loss consistent from week to week?
I assume since you're so focused on the details that you've been holding protein and other variables constant, so that you really can prove that these things matter.... so what have your results been so far? Are you losing at 1.5 lbs/week instead of a predicted 1 lb/week? 1.25 lb/week? 1.1 lb/week? You keep saying the advantage is not insignificant, but I would like to see it expressed in how much extra a person could lose in the same time period so people can assess whether the extra trouble is worth going to or not.
Thanks in advance for sharing the results of your experiment!
The study I just posted looks like LC makes about 100kcal difference a day due to LC for the people the experiment was run on. IF wasn't addressed which I think would be an even bigger contribution.
If both were done and it resulted in a 200-300 kcal/day difference, would that not be significant?
My BMR is supposed to be about 2000kcal/day (by impedance measurements and by MFP predictions) or about 90-kcal/hr. If I do a 20:4 IF, I imagine that I'm doing gluconeogenisis about 16-hrs of that time. That would be about 90x16 cals produced that way (some of the cals I'm running on would be keytones also so the numbers for gluconeogensis wouldn't be that high but I'm sure there is some inneficiencies producing those also) which is about 1440kcals. 33% of that number is about 480kcals/day (losses due to inefficiencies). Someone eating a high carb continuous diet would be performing gluconeogenesis for a much shorter time, maybe 4-hrs at the end of their sleep so the difference between these extremes could be about 360kcals/day. That is a ball park estimate for just IF. LC combined would make the time in gluconeogenis even longer by about 4-hrs in this example so both together could be back to about 480kcals/day. None of this addresses rate and saturation limits on properly digesting the food consumed during a 4-hr eating window which could even further increase a deficit. Those are significant numbers.
My main point is, a lot of people say it makes NO difference which flies in the face of any reasoning. That attitude stifles looking into the magnitude of the differences it makes. I don't know how much a difference it makes but I do know the difference is not ZERO. Anyone who thinks that does not have a basic understanding of thermodynamics. You can't take electricity, do electrolysis with it, take the hydrogen and oxygen produced with the electrolysis, burn it to turn a steam turbine and end up with the same amount of electrical energy you started with! There are losses. Going from food to fat to glucose results in losses. 33% losses according to the study I provided.
People lump all these other effects into BMR which is in error. They will calculate CI the mouth, energy expenditures and calculate BMR from that. The example of the diabetic shows that is the wrong approach because they don't aborb food (without insulin) and it is excreted. Their basal metabolic needs didn't use those calories up. Same with losses from gluconeogenisis, they may make your body hotter, but they were not used up from an an external energy demand from the body and would not be necessary if carbs where present.
My experience won't prove anything, but I have lost at a greater rate than what MFP predicted. I lost about 45-lbs in 5-months. I did count calories and by the BMR estimate I was given and the exercise and steps I did, I lost about 1-lb more/week than it said I should. There are MANY more people, some I read about today even, that did detailed calorie counting for a long time and plateaued then started a 5:2 IF diet and started losing while continuing the counting as they had done before. That doesn't necessarily prove anything either since it wasn't a controlled experiment, but there is tons of antecdotal evidence, which may indicate causality. I maintained for 1.5 years after the initial weight loss and now I've lost 13-lbs in the last 8 weeks after going back on my 20:4 IF diet. I maintained on a 16:8 IF diet. I eat ad libitum in the evenings and I don't count calories very much. I probably eat about 2000-2400kcal/day (mostly 2400/day) based on the few days I have counted. I run 4xweek for about 20-miles/week. My estimated TDEE is 2700kcal/day (I have a smart gps watch that gives me steps and running estimates - I do run hills once a week which it will underestimate). For the last 8-wks my average loss is 1.62-lbs/week which would require a minimum of an 810kcal deficit/day (my losses were 2-lbs week except for two of the weeks I didn't keep the diet everyday due to a marriage in the family and some other circumstances). There is no way I'm eating only 1900 kcals/day on the average guaranteed! For me, there is an unexplained difference of about 300kcal or more/day which coincides well with my gestimate above. When I was at 2-lbs loss/day (doing IF everyday), the unexplained difference was about 300-700kcal/day.
I don't have a problem with people saying they think the factors mentioned are insignificant (TBD) but I do have a problem when they say they don't exist.
A lot of theory, that isn't backed up by data (since you don't log), and you are trying to extrapolate while you aren't following the conditions of the study (neither protein level not carb level). If any of your theories were true, they would have come out in the KH studies comparing keto vs high sugar/high carb where protein and calorie where held constant.
Don't get me wrong, there are things that influence EE, but it's minuscule and certainly not the 300+ calories you are thinking.
Very controlled studies with mice with some fasting and some not and both eating the same amount of calories on the average has resulted in the fasting mice losing weight. Explain that!1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »@blambo61 in thread after thread like this, you state that you agree that CICO works and that you aren't trying to disprove it, you seem to be saying that it's possible to go above and beyond the rate of loss someone would get from just the basic calorie deficit if they follow IF and/or a LCHF diet. People keep telling you that any additional benefits would either be negligible, or temporary, or just not be worth the extra effort if someone doesn't enjoy doing IF or eating LC. You disagree and keep touting studies about glucogenesis, in the past, if I recall, it was TEF and excretion you were focusing on.
My question is, what have your results been, since clearly you're so passionate about dialing in your results to maximize every potential fraction of a calorie burn. How long have you been on your weight loss journey? How much weight did you have to lose? How much have you lost and in what time period? Is the loss consistent from week to week?
I assume since you're so focused on the details that you've been holding protein and other variables constant, so that you really can prove that these things matter.... so what have your results been so far? Are you losing at 1.5 lbs/week instead of a predicted 1 lb/week? 1.25 lb/week? 1.1 lb/week? You keep saying the advantage is not insignificant, but I would like to see it expressed in how much extra a person could lose in the same time period so people can assess whether the extra trouble is worth going to or not.
Thanks in advance for sharing the results of your experiment!
The study I just posted looks like LC makes about 100kcal difference a day due to LC for the people the experiment was run on. IF wasn't addressed which I think would be an even bigger contribution.
If both were done and it resulted in a 200-300 kcal/day difference, would that not be significant?
My BMR is supposed to be about 2000kcal/day (by impedance measurements and by MFP predictions) or about 90-kcal/hr. If I do a 20:4 IF, I imagine that I'm doing gluconeogenisis about 16-hrs of that time. That would be about 90x16 cals produced that way (some of the cals I'm running on would be keytones also so the numbers for gluconeogensis wouldn't be that high but I'm sure there is some inneficiencies producing those also) which is about 1440kcals. 33% of that number is about 480kcals/day (losses due to inefficiencies). Someone eating a high carb continuous diet would be performing gluconeogenesis for a much shorter time, maybe 4-hrs at the end of their sleep so the difference between these extremes could be about 360kcals/day. That is a ball park estimate for just IF. LC combined would make the time in gluconeogenis even longer by about 4-hrs in this example so both together could be back to about 480kcals/day. None of this addresses rate and saturation limits on properly digesting the food consumed during a 4-hr eating window which could even further increase a deficit. Those are significant numbers.
My main point is, a lot of people say it makes NO difference which flies in the face of any reasoning. That attitude stifles looking into the magnitude of the differences it makes. I don't know how much a difference it makes but I do know the difference is not ZERO. Anyone who thinks that does not have a basic understanding of thermodynamics. You can't take electricity, do electrolysis with it, take the hydrogen and oxygen produced with the electrolysis, burn it to turn a steam turbine and end up with the same amount of electrical energy you started with! There are losses. Going from food to fat to glucose results in losses. 33% losses according to the study I provided.
People lump all these other effects into BMR which is in error. They will calculate CI the mouth, energy expenditures and calculate BMR from that. The example of the diabetic shows that is the wrong approach because they don't aborb food (without insulin) and it is excreted. Their basal metabolic needs didn't use those calories up. Same with losses from gluconeogenisis, they may make your body hotter, but they were not used up from an an external energy demand from the body and would not be necessary if carbs where present.
My experience won't prove anything, but I have lost at a greater rate than what MFP predicted. I lost about 45-lbs in 5-months. I did count calories and by the BMR estimate I was given and the exercise and steps I did, I lost about 1-lb more/week than it said I should. There are MANY more people, some I read about today even, that did detailed calorie counting for a long time and plateaued then started a 5:2 IF diet and started losing while continuing the counting as they had done before. That doesn't necessarily prove anything either since it wasn't a controlled experiment, but there is tons of antecdotal evidence, which may indicate causality. I maintained for 1.5 years after the initial weight loss and now I've lost 13-lbs in the last 8 weeks after going back on my 20:4 IF diet. I maintained on a 16:8 IF diet. I eat ad libitum in the evenings and I don't count calories very much. I probably eat about 2000-2400kcal/day (mostly 2400/day) based on the few days I have counted. I run 4xweek for about 20-miles/week. My estimated TDEE is 2700kcal/day (I have a smart gps watch that gives me steps and running estimates - I do run hills once a week which it will underestimate). For the last 8-wks my average loss is 1.62-lbs/week which would require a minimum of an 810kcal deficit/day (my losses were 2-lbs week except for two of the weeks I didn't keep the diet everyday due to a marriage in the family and some other circumstances). There is no way I'm eating only 1900 kcals/day on the average guaranteed! For me, there is an unexplained difference of about 300kcal or more/day which coincides well with my gestimate above. When I was at 2-lbs loss/day (doing IF everyday), the unexplained difference was about 300-700kcal/day.
I don't have a problem with people saying they think the factors mentioned are insignificant (TBD) but I do have a problem when they say they don't exist.
A lot of theory, that isn't backed up by data (since you don't log), and you are trying to extrapolate while you aren't following the conditions of the study (neither protein level not carb level). If any of your theories were true, they would have come out in the KH studies comparing keto vs high sugar/high carb where protein and calorie where held constant.
Don't get me wrong, there are things that influence EE, but it's minuscule and certainly not the 300+ calories you are thinking.
Very controlled studies with mice with some fasting and some not and both eating the same amount of calories on the average has resulted in the fasting mice losing weight. Explain that!
1. I don't even know which studies you are discussing and 2. What happens in mice models doesn't always transpose to humans. Mice models are a good foundation to justify human trials.2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »@blambo61 in thread after thread like this, you state that you agree that CICO works and that you aren't trying to disprove it, you seem to be saying that it's possible to go above and beyond the rate of loss someone would get from just the basic calorie deficit if they follow IF and/or a LCHF diet. People keep telling you that any additional benefits would either be negligible, or temporary, or just not be worth the extra effort if someone doesn't enjoy doing IF or eating LC. You disagree and keep touting studies about glucogenesis, in the past, if I recall, it was TEF and excretion you were focusing on.
My question is, what have your results been, since clearly you're so passionate about dialing in your results to maximize every potential fraction of a calorie burn. How long have you been on your weight loss journey? How much weight did you have to lose? How much have you lost and in what time period? Is the loss consistent from week to week?
I assume since you're so focused on the details that you've been holding protein and other variables constant, so that you really can prove that these things matter.... so what have your results been so far? Are you losing at 1.5 lbs/week instead of a predicted 1 lb/week? 1.25 lb/week? 1.1 lb/week? You keep saying the advantage is not insignificant, but I would like to see it expressed in how much extra a person could lose in the same time period so people can assess whether the extra trouble is worth going to or not.
Thanks in advance for sharing the results of your experiment!
The study I just posted looks like LC makes about 100kcal difference a day due to LC for the people the experiment was run on. IF wasn't addressed which I think would be an even bigger contribution.
If both were done and it resulted in a 200-300 kcal/day difference, would that not be significant?
My BMR is supposed to be about 2000kcal/day (by impedance measurements and by MFP predictions) or about 90-kcal/hr. If I do a 20:4 IF, I imagine that I'm doing gluconeogenisis about 16-hrs of that time. That would be about 90x16 cals produced that way (some of the cals I'm running on would be keytones also so the numbers for gluconeogensis wouldn't be that high but I'm sure there is some inneficiencies producing those also) which is about 1440kcals. 33% of that number is about 480kcals/day (losses due to inefficiencies). Someone eating a high carb continuous diet would be performing gluconeogenesis for a much shorter time, maybe 4-hrs at the end of their sleep so the difference between these extremes could be about 360kcals/day. That is a ball park estimate for just IF. LC combined would make the time in gluconeogenis even longer by about 4-hrs in this example so both together could be back to about 480kcals/day. None of this addresses rate and saturation limits on properly digesting the food consumed during a 4-hr eating window which could even further increase a deficit. Those are significant numbers.
My main point is, a lot of people say it makes NO difference which flies in the face of any reasoning. That attitude stifles looking into the magnitude of the differences it makes. I don't know how much a difference it makes but I do know the difference is not ZERO. Anyone who thinks that does not have a basic understanding of thermodynamics. You can't take electricity, do electrolysis with it, take the hydrogen and oxygen produced with the electrolysis, burn it to turn a steam turbine and end up with the same amount of electrical energy you started with! There are losses. Going from food to fat to glucose results in losses. 33% losses according to the study I provided.
People lump all these other effects into BMR which is in error. They will calculate CI the mouth, energy expenditures and calculate BMR from that. The example of the diabetic shows that is the wrong approach because they don't aborb food (without insulin) and it is excreted. Their basal metabolic needs didn't use those calories up. Same with losses from gluconeogenisis, they may make your body hotter, but they were not used up from an an external energy demand from the body and would not be necessary if carbs where present.
My experience won't prove anything, but I have lost at a greater rate than what MFP predicted. I lost about 45-lbs in 5-months. I did count calories and by the BMR estimate I was given and the exercise and steps I did, I lost about 1-lb more/week than it said I should. There are MANY more people, some I read about today even, that did detailed calorie counting for a long time and plateaued then started a 5:2 IF diet and started losing while continuing the counting as they had done before. That doesn't necessarily prove anything either since it wasn't a controlled experiment, but there is tons of antecdotal evidence, which may indicate causality. I maintained for 1.5 years after the initial weight loss and now I've lost 13-lbs in the last 8 weeks after going back on my 20:4 IF diet. I maintained on a 16:8 IF diet. I eat ad libitum in the evenings and I don't count calories very much. I probably eat about 2000-2400kcal/day (mostly 2400/day) based on the few days I have counted. I run 4xweek for about 20-miles/week. My estimated TDEE is 2700kcal/day (I have a smart gps watch that gives me steps and running estimates - I do run hills once a week which it will underestimate). For the last 8-wks my average loss is 1.62-lbs/week which would require a minimum of an 810kcal deficit/day (my losses were 2-lbs week except for two of the weeks I didn't keep the diet everyday due to a marriage in the family and some other circumstances). There is no way I'm eating only 1900 kcals/day on the average guaranteed! For me, there is an unexplained difference of about 300kcal or more/day which coincides well with my gestimate above. When I was at 2-lbs loss/day (doing IF everyday), the unexplained difference was about 300-700kcal/day.
I don't have a problem with people saying they think the factors mentioned are insignificant (TBD) but I do have a problem when they say they don't exist.
A lot of theory, that isn't backed up by data (since you don't log), and you are trying to extrapolate while you aren't following the conditions of the study (neither protein level not carb level). If any of your theories were true, they would have come out in the KH studies comparing keto vs high sugar/high carb where protein and calorie where held constant.
Don't get me wrong, there are things that influence EE, but it's minuscule and certainly not the 300+ calories you are thinking.
Very controlled studies with mice with some fasting and some not and both eating the same amount of calories on the average has resulted in the fasting mice losing weight. Explain that!
1. I don't even know which studies you are discussing and 2. What happens in mice models doesn't always transpose to humans. Mice models are a good foundation to justify human trials.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319791.php
If mice can violate "CICO" then why not humans? How can a mouse violate CICO? The reason is CI in the mouth does not equal calories into a fat cell and calories out of a fat cell are not equivalent to calories available for work. When and what you eat makes a difference. Mice obey laws of conservation of energy just like humans. CICO is a conservative simple model that does not capture all the energy losses going on.
If CICO does not include calories not metabolized and also includes increases in body metabolism due to what and when you eat, then I will say CICO is a complete model.3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »@blambo61 in thread after thread like this, you state that you agree that CICO works and that you aren't trying to disprove it, you seem to be saying that it's possible to go above and beyond the rate of loss someone would get from just the basic calorie deficit if they follow IF and/or a LCHF diet. People keep telling you that any additional benefits would either be negligible, or temporary, or just not be worth the extra effort if someone doesn't enjoy doing IF or eating LC. You disagree and keep touting studies about glucogenesis, in the past, if I recall, it was TEF and excretion you were focusing on.
My question is, what have your results been, since clearly you're so passionate about dialing in your results to maximize every potential fraction of a calorie burn. How long have you been on your weight loss journey? How much weight did you have to lose? How much have you lost and in what time period? Is the loss consistent from week to week?
I assume since you're so focused on the details that you've been holding protein and other variables constant, so that you really can prove that these things matter.... so what have your results been so far? Are you losing at 1.5 lbs/week instead of a predicted 1 lb/week? 1.25 lb/week? 1.1 lb/week? You keep saying the advantage is not insignificant, but I would like to see it expressed in how much extra a person could lose in the same time period so people can assess whether the extra trouble is worth going to or not.
Thanks in advance for sharing the results of your experiment!
The study I just posted looks like LC makes about 100kcal difference a day due to LC for the people the experiment was run on. IF wasn't addressed which I think would be an even bigger contribution.
If both were done and it resulted in a 200-300 kcal/day difference, would that not be significant?
My BMR is supposed to be about 2000kcal/day (by impedance measurements and by MFP predictions) or about 90-kcal/hr. If I do a 20:4 IF, I imagine that I'm doing gluconeogenisis about 16-hrs of that time. That would be about 90x16 cals produced that way (some of the cals I'm running on would be keytones also so the numbers for gluconeogensis wouldn't be that high but I'm sure there is some inneficiencies producing those also) which is about 1440kcals. 33% of that number is about 480kcals/day (losses due to inefficiencies). Someone eating a high carb continuous diet would be performing gluconeogenesis for a much shorter time, maybe 4-hrs at the end of their sleep so the difference between these extremes could be about 360kcals/day. That is a ball park estimate for just IF. LC combined would make the time in gluconeogenis even longer by about 4-hrs in this example so both together could be back to about 480kcals/day. None of this addresses rate and saturation limits on properly digesting the food consumed during a 4-hr eating window which could even further increase a deficit. Those are significant numbers.
My main point is, a lot of people say it makes NO difference which flies in the face of any reasoning. That attitude stifles looking into the magnitude of the differences it makes. I don't know how much a difference it makes but I do know the difference is not ZERO. Anyone who thinks that does not have a basic understanding of thermodynamics. You can't take electricity, do electrolysis with it, take the hydrogen and oxygen produced with the electrolysis, burn it to turn a steam turbine and end up with the same amount of electrical energy you started with! There are losses. Going from food to fat to glucose results in losses. 33% losses according to the study I provided.
People lump all these other effects into BMR which is in error. They will calculate CI the mouth, energy expenditures and calculate BMR from that. The example of the diabetic shows that is the wrong approach because they don't aborb food (without insulin) and it is excreted. Their basal metabolic needs didn't use those calories up. Same with losses from gluconeogenisis, they may make your body hotter, but they were not used up from an an external energy demand from the body and would not be necessary if carbs where present.
My experience won't prove anything, but I have lost at a greater rate than what MFP predicted. I lost about 45-lbs in 5-months. I did count calories and by the BMR estimate I was given and the exercise and steps I did, I lost about 1-lb more/week than it said I should. There are MANY more people, some I read about today even, that did detailed calorie counting for a long time and plateaued then started a 5:2 IF diet and started losing while continuing the counting as they had done before. That doesn't necessarily prove anything either since it wasn't a controlled experiment, but there is tons of antecdotal evidence, which may indicate causality. I maintained for 1.5 years after the initial weight loss and now I've lost 13-lbs in the last 8 weeks after going back on my 20:4 IF diet. I maintained on a 16:8 IF diet. I eat ad libitum in the evenings and I don't count calories very much. I probably eat about 2000-2400kcal/day (mostly 2400/day) based on the few days I have counted. I run 4xweek for about 20-miles/week. My estimated TDEE is 2700kcal/day (I have a smart gps watch that gives me steps and running estimates - I do run hills once a week which it will underestimate). For the last 8-wks my average loss is 1.62-lbs/week which would require a minimum of an 810kcal deficit/day (my losses were 2-lbs week except for two of the weeks I didn't keep the diet everyday due to a marriage in the family and some other circumstances). There is no way I'm eating only 1900 kcals/day on the average guaranteed! For me, there is an unexplained difference of about 300kcal or more/day which coincides well with my gestimate above. When I was at 2-lbs loss/day (doing IF everyday), the unexplained difference was about 300-700kcal/day.
I don't have a problem with people saying they think the factors mentioned are insignificant (TBD) but I do have a problem when they say they don't exist.
A lot of theory, that isn't backed up by data (since you don't log), and you are trying to extrapolate while you aren't following the conditions of the study (neither protein level not carb level). If any of your theories were true, they would have come out in the KH studies comparing keto vs high sugar/high carb where protein and calorie where held constant.
Don't get me wrong, there are things that influence EE, but it's minuscule and certainly not the 300+ calories you are thinking.
Very controlled studies with mice with some fasting and some not and both eating the same amount of calories on the average has resulted in the fasting mice losing weight. Explain that!
1. I don't even know which studies you are discussing and 2. What happens in mice models doesn't always transpose to humans. Mice models are a good foundation to justify human trials.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319791.php
If mice can violate "CICO" then why not humans? How can a mouse violate CICO? The reason is CI in the mouth does not equal calories into a fat cell and calories out of a fat cell are not equivalent to calories available for work. When and what you eat makes a difference. Mice obey laws of conservation of energy just like humans. CICO is a conservative simple model that does not capture all the energy losses going on.
If CICO does not include calories not metabolized and also includes increases in body metabolism that are not due to an energy demand on the body, then I will agree that CICO is the complete model.
This is a straw man argument since no one else is using the same limited definition of CICO you are. CI means calories into the system, not into the mouth. CO means caloric output, which obviously varies greatly between individuals.2 -
rheddmobile wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »@blambo61 in thread after thread like this, you state that you agree that CICO works and that you aren't trying to disprove it, you seem to be saying that it's possible to go above and beyond the rate of loss someone would get from just the basic calorie deficit if they follow IF and/or a LCHF diet. People keep telling you that any additional benefits would either be negligible, or temporary, or just not be worth the extra effort if someone doesn't enjoy doing IF or eating LC. You disagree and keep touting studies about glucogenesis, in the past, if I recall, it was TEF and excretion you were focusing on.
My question is, what have your results been, since clearly you're so passionate about dialing in your results to maximize every potential fraction of a calorie burn. How long have you been on your weight loss journey? How much weight did you have to lose? How much have you lost and in what time period? Is the loss consistent from week to week?
I assume since you're so focused on the details that you've been holding protein and other variables constant, so that you really can prove that these things matter.... so what have your results been so far? Are you losing at 1.5 lbs/week instead of a predicted 1 lb/week? 1.25 lb/week? 1.1 lb/week? You keep saying the advantage is not insignificant, but I would like to see it expressed in how much extra a person could lose in the same time period so people can assess whether the extra trouble is worth going to or not.
Thanks in advance for sharing the results of your experiment!
The study I just posted looks like LC makes about 100kcal difference a day due to LC for the people the experiment was run on. IF wasn't addressed which I think would be an even bigger contribution.
If both were done and it resulted in a 200-300 kcal/day difference, would that not be significant?
My BMR is supposed to be about 2000kcal/day (by impedance measurements and by MFP predictions) or about 90-kcal/hr. If I do a 20:4 IF, I imagine that I'm doing gluconeogenisis about 16-hrs of that time. That would be about 90x16 cals produced that way (some of the cals I'm running on would be keytones also so the numbers for gluconeogensis wouldn't be that high but I'm sure there is some inneficiencies producing those also) which is about 1440kcals. 33% of that number is about 480kcals/day (losses due to inefficiencies). Someone eating a high carb continuous diet would be performing gluconeogenesis for a much shorter time, maybe 4-hrs at the end of their sleep so the difference between these extremes could be about 360kcals/day. That is a ball park estimate for just IF. LC combined would make the time in gluconeogenis even longer by about 4-hrs in this example so both together could be back to about 480kcals/day. None of this addresses rate and saturation limits on properly digesting the food consumed during a 4-hr eating window which could even further increase a deficit. Those are significant numbers.
My main point is, a lot of people say it makes NO difference which flies in the face of any reasoning. That attitude stifles looking into the magnitude of the differences it makes. I don't know how much a difference it makes but I do know the difference is not ZERO. Anyone who thinks that does not have a basic understanding of thermodynamics. You can't take electricity, do electrolysis with it, take the hydrogen and oxygen produced with the electrolysis, burn it to turn a steam turbine and end up with the same amount of electrical energy you started with! There are losses. Going from food to fat to glucose results in losses. 33% losses according to the study I provided.
People lump all these other effects into BMR which is in error. They will calculate CI the mouth, energy expenditures and calculate BMR from that. The example of the diabetic shows that is the wrong approach because they don't aborb food (without insulin) and it is excreted. Their basal metabolic needs didn't use those calories up. Same with losses from gluconeogenisis, they may make your body hotter, but they were not used up from an an external energy demand from the body and would not be necessary if carbs where present.
My experience won't prove anything, but I have lost at a greater rate than what MFP predicted. I lost about 45-lbs in 5-months. I did count calories and by the BMR estimate I was given and the exercise and steps I did, I lost about 1-lb more/week than it said I should. There are MANY more people, some I read about today even, that did detailed calorie counting for a long time and plateaued then started a 5:2 IF diet and started losing while continuing the counting as they had done before. That doesn't necessarily prove anything either since it wasn't a controlled experiment, but there is tons of antecdotal evidence, which may indicate causality. I maintained for 1.5 years after the initial weight loss and now I've lost 13-lbs in the last 8 weeks after going back on my 20:4 IF diet. I maintained on a 16:8 IF diet. I eat ad libitum in the evenings and I don't count calories very much. I probably eat about 2000-2400kcal/day (mostly 2400/day) based on the few days I have counted. I run 4xweek for about 20-miles/week. My estimated TDEE is 2700kcal/day (I have a smart gps watch that gives me steps and running estimates - I do run hills once a week which it will underestimate). For the last 8-wks my average loss is 1.62-lbs/week which would require a minimum of an 810kcal deficit/day (my losses were 2-lbs week except for two of the weeks I didn't keep the diet everyday due to a marriage in the family and some other circumstances). There is no way I'm eating only 1900 kcals/day on the average guaranteed! For me, there is an unexplained difference of about 300kcal or more/day which coincides well with my gestimate above. When I was at 2-lbs loss/day (doing IF everyday), the unexplained difference was about 300-700kcal/day.
I don't have a problem with people saying they think the factors mentioned are insignificant (TBD) but I do have a problem when they say they don't exist.
A lot of theory, that isn't backed up by data (since you don't log), and you are trying to extrapolate while you aren't following the conditions of the study (neither protein level not carb level). If any of your theories were true, they would have come out in the KH studies comparing keto vs high sugar/high carb where protein and calorie where held constant.
Don't get me wrong, there are things that influence EE, but it's minuscule and certainly not the 300+ calories you are thinking.
Very controlled studies with mice with some fasting and some not and both eating the same amount of calories on the average has resulted in the fasting mice losing weight. Explain that!
1. I don't even know which studies you are discussing and 2. What happens in mice models doesn't always transpose to humans. Mice models are a good foundation to justify human trials.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319791.php
If mice can violate "CICO" then why not humans? How can a mouse violate CICO? The reason is CI in the mouth does not equal calories into a fat cell and calories out of a fat cell are not equivalent to calories available for work. When and what you eat makes a difference. Mice obey laws of conservation of energy just like humans. CICO is a conservative simple model that does not capture all the energy losses going on.
If CICO does not include calories not metabolized and also includes increases in body metabolism that are not due to an energy demand on the body, then I will agree that CICO is the complete model.
This is a straw man argument since no one else is using the same limited definition of CICO you are. CI means calories into the system, not into the mouth. CO means caloric output, which obviously varies greatly between individuals.
It is clear by people's comments that they include all calories into the mouth and don't take into account the variations of metabolism due to what you eat or when you eat. The simple statement like, "IF makes no difference" proves that.2 -
rheddmobile wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »@blambo61 in thread after thread like this, you state that you agree that CICO works and that you aren't trying to disprove it, you seem to be saying that it's possible to go above and beyond the rate of loss someone would get from just the basic calorie deficit if they follow IF and/or a LCHF diet. People keep telling you that any additional benefits would either be negligible, or temporary, or just not be worth the extra effort if someone doesn't enjoy doing IF or eating LC. You disagree and keep touting studies about glucogenesis, in the past, if I recall, it was TEF and excretion you were focusing on.
My question is, what have your results been, since clearly you're so passionate about dialing in your results to maximize every potential fraction of a calorie burn. How long have you been on your weight loss journey? How much weight did you have to lose? How much have you lost and in what time period? Is the loss consistent from week to week?
I assume since you're so focused on the details that you've been holding protein and other variables constant, so that you really can prove that these things matter.... so what have your results been so far? Are you losing at 1.5 lbs/week instead of a predicted 1 lb/week? 1.25 lb/week? 1.1 lb/week? You keep saying the advantage is not insignificant, but I would like to see it expressed in how much extra a person could lose in the same time period so people can assess whether the extra trouble is worth going to or not.
Thanks in advance for sharing the results of your experiment!
The study I just posted looks like LC makes about 100kcal difference a day due to LC for the people the experiment was run on. IF wasn't addressed which I think would be an even bigger contribution.
If both were done and it resulted in a 200-300 kcal/day difference, would that not be significant?
My BMR is supposed to be about 2000kcal/day (by impedance measurements and by MFP predictions) or about 90-kcal/hr. If I do a 20:4 IF, I imagine that I'm doing gluconeogenisis about 16-hrs of that time. That would be about 90x16 cals produced that way (some of the cals I'm running on would be keytones also so the numbers for gluconeogensis wouldn't be that high but I'm sure there is some inneficiencies producing those also) which is about 1440kcals. 33% of that number is about 480kcals/day (losses due to inefficiencies). Someone eating a high carb continuous diet would be performing gluconeogenesis for a much shorter time, maybe 4-hrs at the end of their sleep so the difference between these extremes could be about 360kcals/day. That is a ball park estimate for just IF. LC combined would make the time in gluconeogenis even longer by about 4-hrs in this example so both together could be back to about 480kcals/day. None of this addresses rate and saturation limits on properly digesting the food consumed during a 4-hr eating window which could even further increase a deficit. Those are significant numbers.
My main point is, a lot of people say it makes NO difference which flies in the face of any reasoning. That attitude stifles looking into the magnitude of the differences it makes. I don't know how much a difference it makes but I do know the difference is not ZERO. Anyone who thinks that does not have a basic understanding of thermodynamics. You can't take electricity, do electrolysis with it, take the hydrogen and oxygen produced with the electrolysis, burn it to turn a steam turbine and end up with the same amount of electrical energy you started with! There are losses. Going from food to fat to glucose results in losses. 33% losses according to the study I provided.
People lump all these other effects into BMR which is in error. They will calculate CI the mouth, energy expenditures and calculate BMR from that. The example of the diabetic shows that is the wrong approach because they don't aborb food (without insulin) and it is excreted. Their basal metabolic needs didn't use those calories up. Same with losses from gluconeogenisis, they may make your body hotter, but they were not used up from an an external energy demand from the body and would not be necessary if carbs where present.
My experience won't prove anything, but I have lost at a greater rate than what MFP predicted. I lost about 45-lbs in 5-months. I did count calories and by the BMR estimate I was given and the exercise and steps I did, I lost about 1-lb more/week than it said I should. There are MANY more people, some I read about today even, that did detailed calorie counting for a long time and plateaued then started a 5:2 IF diet and started losing while continuing the counting as they had done before. That doesn't necessarily prove anything either since it wasn't a controlled experiment, but there is tons of antecdotal evidence, which may indicate causality. I maintained for 1.5 years after the initial weight loss and now I've lost 13-lbs in the last 8 weeks after going back on my 20:4 IF diet. I maintained on a 16:8 IF diet. I eat ad libitum in the evenings and I don't count calories very much. I probably eat about 2000-2400kcal/day (mostly 2400/day) based on the few days I have counted. I run 4xweek for about 20-miles/week. My estimated TDEE is 2700kcal/day (I have a smart gps watch that gives me steps and running estimates - I do run hills once a week which it will underestimate). For the last 8-wks my average loss is 1.62-lbs/week which would require a minimum of an 810kcal deficit/day (my losses were 2-lbs week except for two of the weeks I didn't keep the diet everyday due to a marriage in the family and some other circumstances). There is no way I'm eating only 1900 kcals/day on the average guaranteed! For me, there is an unexplained difference of about 300kcal or more/day which coincides well with my gestimate above. When I was at 2-lbs loss/day (doing IF everyday), the unexplained difference was about 300-700kcal/day.
I don't have a problem with people saying they think the factors mentioned are insignificant (TBD) but I do have a problem when they say they don't exist.
A lot of theory, that isn't backed up by data (since you don't log), and you are trying to extrapolate while you aren't following the conditions of the study (neither protein level not carb level). If any of your theories were true, they would have come out in the KH studies comparing keto vs high sugar/high carb where protein and calorie where held constant.
Don't get me wrong, there are things that influence EE, but it's minuscule and certainly not the 300+ calories you are thinking.
Very controlled studies with mice with some fasting and some not and both eating the same amount of calories on the average has resulted in the fasting mice losing weight. Explain that!
1. I don't even know which studies you are discussing and 2. What happens in mice models doesn't always transpose to humans. Mice models are a good foundation to justify human trials.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319791.php
If mice can violate "CICO" then why not humans? How can a mouse violate CICO? The reason is CI in the mouth does not equal calories into a fat cell and calories out of a fat cell are not equivalent to calories available for work. When and what you eat makes a difference. Mice obey laws of conservation of energy just like humans. CICO is a conservative simple model that does not capture all the energy losses going on.
If CICO does not include calories not metabolized and also includes increases in body metabolism that are not due to an energy demand on the body, then I will agree that CICO is the complete model.
This is a straw man argument since no one else is using the same limited definition of CICO you are. CI means calories into the system, not into the mouth. CO means caloric output, which obviously varies greatly between individuals.
It is clear by people's comments that they include all calories into the mouth and don't take into account the variations of metabolism due to what you eat or when you eat. A simple statement like, "IF makes no difference" proves that.
Actually, if you looked at the KH paper I provide, CI = food metabolized. IF doesn't change that. If you consumed the same exact foods, it would have the same impact.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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