Clearly CICO has no bearing on my recent weight loss
Replies
-
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.
Ok, but most posters on here equate CI to food in the mouth. Timing does matter when the food is eaten.5 -
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.
Ok, but most posters on here equate CI to food in the mouth. Timing does matter when the food is eaten.
Posters may not always have the correct information. If foods are unmetabolized and not converted to energy, they will just be excreted. You often see this is those with malabsorption issues.
And please feel free to post a study that demonstrates timing matters, when controlled for calories and protein. Otherwise, you are making wild assumptions and aren't supported by science. And at that point, this discussion isn't worth my time.3 -
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.
Ok, but most posters on here equate CI to food in the mouth. Timing does matter when the food is eaten.
Posters may not always have the correct information. If foods are unmetabolized and not converted to energy, they will just be excreted. You often see this is those with malabsorption issues.
And please feel free to post a study that demonstrates timing matters, when controlled for calories and protein. Otherwise, you are making wild assumptions and aren't supported by science. And at that point, this discussion isn't worth my time.
I did post the mice study. How can one group of mice lose weight by doing IF while eating the same amount of calories as another group of mice that doesn't do IF? Did the mice violate the laws of thermodynamics?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.
Ok, but most posters on here equate CI to food in the mouth. Timing does matter when the food is eaten.
Posters may not always have the correct information. If foods are unmetabolized and not converted to energy, they will just be excreted. You often see this is those with malabsorption issues.
And please feel free to post a study that demonstrates timing matters, when controlled for calories and protein. Otherwise, you are making wild assumptions and aren't supported by science. And at that point, this discussion isn't worth my time.
I did post the mice study. How can one group of mice lose weight by doing IF while eating the same amount of calories as another group of mice that doesn't do IF? Did the mice violate the laws of thermodynamics?
You posted an article.... not a study in which didnt reference the specific study. And again, extrapolating results from mice to humans doesnt necessarily translate. So again, ao me human models to support your hypothesis.3 -
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.
Ok, but most posters on here equate CI to food in the mouth. Timing does matter when the food is eaten.
I think most posters here, when doing calorie counting do assume that calories in the mouth are close enough to CI to be a practical simplification in the early steps of the process of finding a workable calorie balance, when that process also includes monitoring results and adjusting eating, activity or both based on those results.
For most, the metabolic details you're concerned about have less impact on success than the inevitable (relatively minor) errors in estimating calories in what you eat, activity/exercise burn, and individual metabolic variation - let alone the habitual, psychological and social aspects.
As a practical matter . . . it doesn't matter. One is consistent, observes results, adjusts, and - if persistent - succeeds.
If IF helps people with managing appetite and consumption, swell. There's no practical need to calculate the metabolic implications, if there are any. It's academic - potentially interesting at that level, but not material.5 -
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.
Ok, but most posters on here equate CI to food in the mouth. Timing does matter when the food is eaten.
I think most posters here, when doing calorie counting do assume that calories in the mouth are close enough to CI to be a practical simplification in the early steps of the process of finding a workable calorie balance, when that process also includes monitoring results and adjusting eating, activity or both based on those results.
For most, the metabolic details you're concerned about have less impact on success than the inevitable (relatively minor) errors in estimating calories in what you eat, activity/exercise burn, and individual metabolic variation - let alone the habitual, psychological and social aspects.
As a practical matter . . . it doesn't matter. One is consistent, observes results, adjusts, and - if persistent - succeeds.
If IF helps people with managing appetite and consumption, swell. There's no practical need to calculate the metabolic implications, if there are any. It's academic - potentially interesting at that level, but not material.
CICO is a conservative model and will work for people, I've said that over and over. But I do think IF is not a minor effect and can help people.
Here is how I see it:
A person eating many meals a day at maintenance levels will hardly ever have an instantaneous surplus and the calories consumed will mostly be used directly with very little of it being put into fat stores. The person eating one meal a day will have a large instantaneous surplus for a while which will be put into fat. Then when that person is fasting, the body will have to draw from the fat stores to supply the energy needs. Drawing from the fat will result in losses due to the extra processes of gluconeogenesis and keytone production. Both of these people ate the same amount of calories, one used up most of the calories directly without any fat storage and subsequent retrieval of calories from fat and the other stored a large percentage of the calories as fat and then had to do a retrieval of calories from the fat which cost even more calories. That is the difference. Gluconeogenesis is only 67% efficient from what I've read. If an IF person put 90% of their calories into fat and then had to retrieve those back and all the retrieval was through gluconeogenesis, then they would have incurred 90% x 33% = 30% overall calorie reduction. I'm sure the effect isn't as great as that but I do think it is significant. Most people here do not look at what is happening in the body on an instantaneous basis and try to average what is happening calorie-wise over a 24-hr or longer period. That is not the proper way to look at things if you want to be accurate. Looking at things over a long time period and not what is happening instantaneously is a simplification which will work and is conservative but it ignores losses you can get with IF.5 -
Dude, you've beaten this horse to death multiple times in various versions on multiple threads. It is majoring in the minors and makes little practical difference in application. Maybe you want give it a rest? KWIM?3
-
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.
Ok, but most posters on here equate CI to food in the mouth. Timing does matter when the food is eaten.
I think most posters here, when doing calorie counting do assume that calories in the mouth are close enough to CI to be a practical simplification in the early steps of the process of finding a workable calorie balance, when that process also includes monitoring results and adjusting eating, activity or both based on those results.
For most, the metabolic details you're concerned about have less impact on success than the inevitable (relatively minor) errors in estimating calories in what you eat, activity/exercise burn, and individual metabolic variation - let alone the habitual, psychological and social aspects.
As a practical matter . . . it doesn't matter. One is consistent, observes results, adjusts, and - if persistent - succeeds.
If IF helps people with managing appetite and consumption, swell. There's no practical need to calculate the metabolic implications, if there are any. It's academic - potentially interesting at that level, but not material.
CICO is a conservative model and will work for people, I've said that over and over. But I do think IF is not a minor effect and can help people.
Here is how I see it:
A person eating many meals a day at maintenance levels will hardly ever have an instantaneous surplus and the calories consumed will mostly be used directly with very little of it being put into fat stores. The person eating one meal a day will have a large instantaneous surplus for a while which will be put into fat. Then when that person is fasting, the body will have to draw from the fat stores to supply the energy needs. Drawing from the fat will result in losses due to the extra processes of gluconeogenesis and keytone production. Both of these people ate the same amount of calories, one used up most of the calories directly without any fat storage and subsequent retrieval of calories from fat and the other stored a large percentage of the calories as fat and then had to do a retrieval of calories from the fat which cost even more calories. That is the difference. Gluconeogenesis is only 67% efficient from what I've read. If an IF person put 90% of their calories into fat and then had to retrieve those back and all the retrieval was through gluconeogenesis, then they would have incurred 90% x 33% = 30% overall calorie reduction. I'm sure the effect isn't as great as that but I do think it is significant. Most people here do not look at what is happening in the body on an instantaneous basis and try to average what is happening calorie-wise over a 24-hr or longer period. That is not the proper way to look at things if you want to be accurate. Looking at things over a long time period and not what is happening instantaneously is a simplification which will work and is conservative but it ignores losses you can get with IF.
In this context, as a practical matter, I don't really care whether I'm 100% accurate, I care whether I'm successful.
Speaking for myself, adding extra rules (about when to eat) is a needless complication. I'm sure that's not true for all, but I'm confident it's true for many.
I'd find your posts much easier to understand if you called calorie counting (the weight loss method) calorie counting, rather than lumping it imprecisely into the term CICO (the abbreviation for the simple weight loss equation). This seems a curious practice in one so attuned to academic finer details.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.
Ok, but most posters on here equate CI to food in the mouth. Timing does matter when the food is eaten.
I think most posters here, when doing calorie counting do assume that calories in the mouth are close enough to CI to be a practical simplification in the early steps of the process of finding a workable calorie balance, when that process also includes monitoring results and adjusting eating, activity or both based on those results.
For most, the metabolic details you're concerned about have less impact on success than the inevitable (relatively minor) errors in estimating calories in what you eat, activity/exercise burn, and individual metabolic variation - let alone the habitual, psychological and social aspects.
As a practical matter . . . it doesn't matter. One is consistent, observes results, adjusts, and - if persistent - succeeds.
If IF helps people with managing appetite and consumption, swell. There's no practical need to calculate the metabolic implications, if there are any. It's academic - potentially interesting at that level, but not material.
CICO is a conservative model and will work for people, I've said that over and over. But I do think IF is not a minor effect and can help people.
Here is how I see it:
A person eating many meals a day at maintenance levels will hardly ever have an instantaneous surplus and the calories consumed will mostly be used directly with very little of it being put into fat stores. The person eating one meal a day will have a large instantaneous surplus for a while which will be put into fat. Then when that person is fasting, the body will have to draw from the fat stores to supply the energy needs. Drawing from the fat will result in losses due to the extra processes of gluconeogenesis and keytone production. Both of these people ate the same amount of calories, one used up most of the calories directly without any fat storage and subsequent retrieval of calories from fat and the other stored a large percentage of the calories as fat and then had to do a retrieval of calories from the fat which cost even more calories. That is the difference. Gluconeogenesis is only 67% efficient from what I've read. If an IF person put 90% of their calories into fat and then had to retrieve those back and all the retrieval was through gluconeogenesis, then they would have incurred 90% x 33% = 30% overall calorie reduction. I'm sure the effect isn't as great as that but I do think it is significant. Most people here do not look at what is happening in the body on an instantaneous basis and try to average what is happening calorie-wise over a 24-hr or longer period. That is not the proper way to look at things if you want to be accurate. Looking at things over a long time period and not what is happening instantaneously is a simplification which will work and is conservative but it ignores losses you can get with IF.
In this context, as a practical matter, I don't really care whether I'm 100% accurate, I care whether I'm successful.
Speaking for myself, adding extra rules (about when to eat) is a needless complication. I'm sure that's not true for all, but I'm confident it's true for many.
I'd find your posts much easier to understand if you called calorie counting (the weight loss method) calorie counting, rather than lumping it imprecisely into the term CICO (the abbreviation for the simple weight loss equation). This seems a curious practice in one so attuned to academic finer details.
I never said anything about adding extra rules, I've said calorie counting or CICO will work, even in the post just prior to this one that you just replied to. I've just said if a person wants to do IF, there is a benefit, it isn't a requirement. I've said that numerous times.0 -
Dude, you've beaten this horse to death multiple times in various versions on multiple threads. It is majoring in the minors and makes little practical difference in application. Maybe you want give it a rest? KWIM?
I just went into a big spill as to why it is not a minor thing. Why not refute what I said with some substance instead of just being dismissive. I keep coming back supporting this because people keep coming back saying it makes no difference and don't provide much counter arguments to what I've said.1 -
Dude, you've beaten this horse to death multiple times in various versions on multiple threads. It is majoring in the minors and makes little practical difference in application. Maybe you want give it a rest? KWIM?
I just went into a big spill as to why it is not a minor thing. Why not refute what I said with some substance instead of just being dismissive. I keep coming back supporting this because people keep coming back saying it makes no difference and don't provide much counter arguments to what I've said.
It's been refuted multiple times in multiple threads. But hey, if you want to keep banging on and on, go right ahead. That's what the ignore button is for.0 -
Dude, you've beaten this horse to death multiple times in various versions on multiple threads. It is majoring in the minors and makes little practical difference in application. Maybe you want give it a rest? KWIM?
I just went into a big spill as to why it is not a minor thing. Why not refute what I said with some substance instead of just being dismissive. I keep coming back supporting this because people keep coming back saying it makes no difference and don't provide much counter arguments to what I've said.
It's been refuted multiple times in multiple threads. But hey, if you want to keep banging on and on, go right ahead. That's what the ignore button is for.
It's not been refuted. Refute the reasoning I gave. Refute the mice study! You can ignore my posts, no one is forcing you to read them.2 -
Dude, you've beaten this horse to death multiple times in various versions on multiple threads. It is majoring in the minors and makes little practical difference in application. Maybe you want give it a rest? KWIM?
I just went into a big spill as to why it is not a minor thing. Why not refute what I said with some substance instead of just being dismissive. I keep coming back supporting this because people keep coming back saying it makes no difference and don't provide much counter arguments to what I've said.
Because even when you are provided data, you ignore it. Like 42% of that increase EE was from GNG and the rest was increases in protein. And then you ignore context, like the people at 0% carbs and did glycogen depleting work outs. Again, you ignored that piece. You'd rather cherry-pick tidbits of information to support your notion.3 -
Dude, you've beaten this horse to death multiple times in various versions on multiple threads. It is majoring in the minors and makes little practical difference in application. Maybe you want give it a rest? KWIM?
I just went into a big spill as to why it is not a minor thing. Why not refute what I said with some substance instead of just being dismissive. I keep coming back supporting this because people keep coming back saying it makes no difference and don't provide much counter arguments to what I've said.
It's been refuted multiple times in multiple threads. But hey, if you want to keep banging on and on, go right ahead. That's what the ignore button is for.
It's not been refuted. Refute the reasoning I gave. Refute the mice study! You can ignore my posts, no one is forcing you to read them.
And again, you didn't post the study, you posted a blog. Of which, didn't have a study linked.3 -
Dude, you've beaten this horse to death multiple times in various versions on multiple threads. It is majoring in the minors and makes little practical difference in application. Maybe you want give it a rest? KWIM?
I just went into a big spill as to why it is not a minor thing. Why not refute what I said with some substance instead of just being dismissive. I keep coming back supporting this because people keep coming back saying it makes no difference and don't provide much counter arguments to what I've said.
It's been refuted multiple times in multiple threads. But hey, if you want to keep banging on and on, go right ahead. That's what the ignore button is for.
It's not been refuted. Refute the reasoning I gave. Refute the mice study! You can ignore my posts, no one is forcing you to read them.
And again, you didn't post the study, you posted a blog. Of which, didn't have a study linked.
+10 -
Dude, you've beaten this horse to death multiple times in various versions on multiple threads. It is majoring in the minors and makes little practical difference in application. Maybe you want give it a rest? KWIM?
I just went into a big spill as to why it is not a minor thing. Why not refute what I said with some substance instead of just being dismissive. I keep coming back supporting this because people keep coming back saying it makes no difference and don't provide much counter arguments to what I've said.
Because even when you are provided data, you ignore it. Like 42% of that increase EE was from GNG and the rest was increases in protein. And then you ignore context, like the people at 0% carbs and did glycogen depleting work outs. Again, you ignored that piece. You'd rather cherry-pick tidbits of information to support your notion.
If you remember the study you just mentioned was about LC and not IF which is what I was just posting about. Your on the wrong topic!1 -
Dude, you've beaten this horse to death multiple times in various versions on multiple threads. It is majoring in the minors and makes little practical difference in application. Maybe you want give it a rest? KWIM?
I just went into a big spill as to why it is not a minor thing. Why not refute what I said with some substance instead of just being dismissive. I keep coming back supporting this because people keep coming back saying it makes no difference and don't provide much counter arguments to what I've said.
It's been refuted multiple times in multiple threads. But hey, if you want to keep banging on and on, go right ahead. That's what the ignore button is for.
It's not been refuted. Refute the reasoning I gave. Refute the mice study! You can ignore my posts, no one is forcing you to read them.
And again, you didn't post the study, you posted a blog. Of which, didn't have a study linked.
+1
I do believe it had a reference. Not too hard to click on it or look it up.1 -
Dude, you've beaten this horse to death multiple times in various versions on multiple threads. It is majoring in the minors and makes little practical difference in application. Maybe you want give it a rest? KWIM?
I just went into a big spill as to why it is not a minor thing. Why not refute what I said with some substance instead of just being dismissive. I keep coming back supporting this because people keep coming back saying it makes no difference and don't provide much counter arguments to what I've said.
Because even when you are provided data, you ignore it. Like 42% of that increase EE was from GNG and the rest was increases in protein. And then you ignore context, like the people at 0% carbs and did glycogen depleting work outs. Again, you ignored that piece. You'd rather cherry-pick tidbits of information to support your notion.
If you remember the study you just mentioned was about LC and not IF which is what I was just posting about. Your on the wrong topic!
Nah bro. It was on GNG because I read it multiple times. Obviously, you only read the abstract.1 -
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10615049/alan-aragon-on-intermittent-fasting
Some recent information of IF and it's lack of apparent benefits over standard CR. It essentially demonstrates that once again, the benefits found in animal models do not occur in human models.2 -
Dude, you've beaten this horse to death multiple times in various versions on multiple threads. It is majoring in the minors and makes little practical difference in application. Maybe you want give it a rest? KWIM?
I just went into a big spill as to why it is not a minor thing. Why not refute what I said with some substance instead of just being dismissive. I keep coming back supporting this because people keep coming back saying it makes no difference and don't provide much counter arguments to what I've said.
Because even when you are provided data, you ignore it. Like 42% of that increase EE was from GNG and the rest was increases in protein. And then you ignore context, like the people at 0% carbs and did glycogen depleting work outs. Again, you ignored that piece. You'd rather cherry-pick tidbits of information to support your notion.
If you remember the study you just mentioned was about LC and not IF which is what I was just posting about. Your on the wrong topic!
Nah bro. It was on GNG because I read it multiple times. Obviously, you only read the abstract.
It was about GNG but not in the context of fasting.0 -
Dude, you've beaten this horse to death multiple times in various versions on multiple threads. It is majoring in the minors and makes little practical difference in application. Maybe you want give it a rest? KWIM?
I just went into a big spill as to why it is not a minor thing. Why not refute what I said with some substance instead of just being dismissive. I keep coming back supporting this because people keep coming back saying it makes no difference and don't provide much counter arguments to what I've said.
Because even when you are provided data, you ignore it. Like 42% of that increase EE was from GNG and the rest was increases in protein. And then you ignore context, like the people at 0% carbs and did glycogen depleting work outs. Again, you ignored that piece. You'd rather cherry-pick tidbits of information to support your notion.
If you remember the study you just mentioned was about LC and not IF which is what I was just posting about. Your on the wrong topic!
Nah bro. It was on GNG because I read it multiple times. Obviously, you only read the abstract.
It was about GNG but not in the context of fasting.
I know that. It was also 0% carbs and glycogen depleting workouts. Not exactly aligned to a normal diet and exercise routine. But keep ignoring those parts.
I added the IF stuff because its a meta analysis which evaluates human and animal models. So the benefits in mice arent being found in humans when compared to normal calorie restricted diets.2 -
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10615049/alan-aragon-on-intermittent-fasting
Some recent information of IF and it's lack of apparent benefits over standard CR. It essentially demonstrates that once again, the benefits found in animal models do not occur in human models.
Animals and humans both obey thermodynamics. Please explain how the mice lost more eating the same calories while fasting?
CICO is a static linear model that misses some things. A better model is a dynamic model that looks at deficits/surpluses at each instant of time and those effects and does not average them.
An example of how linear thinking can lead to errors:
Image a car that travels at 60 mph for 4 hours. It travels 240 miles
Now imagine the same car on the same road under the same conditions making the same trip but it travels for 2-hrs at 50 mph (100-miles) and then 70 mph for two hours (140 miles). This time the car made the 240-mile trip in four hours also. Which trip used the most gas, the first or the second or were they the same? A static linear analysis you would say it was the same. A more accurate analysis would be:
Energy to overcome drag = drag force x distance traveled (assuming constant drag force)
drag force = Cxv^2 where C is a proportionality constant
drag Energy for trip 2 / drag Energy for trip 1 = [(Cx50mph^2 x 100miles) + (Cx70mph^2 x 140miles)] / (Cx60mph^2 x 240miles) = 1.08 (trip #2 cost 8% more energy to overcome drag than trip #1 due to drag force being nonlinear with speed). Energy needed for both trips would include the energy to overcome friction also which was assumed constant. If drag was say 80% of the total energy, then 80% x 8% = 6.4% more energy for trip number 2.
In the case of fasting, calories are not burned linearly if GNG is involved and there is a penalty. 33% penalty says the article we have been talking about. Now the question is how much more GNG is there with fasting to know how much to apply the 33% penalty to. How fast things happen in real systems matters (don't average - must integrate over time).
With IF, there is a mode switch from using calories directly (not going into fat storage) to indirectly using them (fat storage then GNG). With averaging, you won't see this.1 -
Dude, you've beaten this horse to death multiple times in various versions on multiple threads. It is majoring in the minors and makes little practical difference in application. Maybe you want give it a rest? KWIM?
I just went into a big spill as to why it is not a minor thing. Why not refute what I said with some substance instead of just being dismissive. I keep coming back supporting this because people keep coming back saying it makes no difference and don't provide much counter arguments to what I've said.
Because even when you are provided data, you ignore it. Like 42% of that increase EE was from GNG and the rest was increases in protein. And then you ignore context, like the people at 0% carbs and did glycogen depleting work outs. Again, you ignored that piece. You'd rather cherry-pick tidbits of information to support your notion.
If you remember the study you just mentioned was about LC and not IF which is what I was just posting about. Your on the wrong topic!
Nah bro. It was on GNG because I read it multiple times. Obviously, you only read the abstract.
It was about GNG but not in the context of fasting.
I know that. It was also 0% carbs and glycogen depleting workouts. Not exactly aligned to a normal diet and exercise routine. But keep ignoring those parts.
I added the IF stuff because its a meta analysis which evaluates human and animal models. So the benefits in mice arent being found in humans when compared to normal calorie restricted diets.
I'm talking about IF, why do you keep ignoring that? Energy equations apply equally to mice and men! The only way that wouldn't be true with the mice study is if the fasting made the mice excrete more of the food they ate and they didn't metabolize it compared to the mice that didn't fast.1 -
Dude, you've beaten this horse to death multiple times in various versions on multiple threads. It is majoring in the minors and makes little practical difference in application. Maybe you want give it a rest? KWIM?
I just went into a big spill as to why it is not a minor thing. Why not refute what I said with some substance instead of just being dismissive. I keep coming back supporting this because people keep coming back saying it makes no difference and don't provide much counter arguments to what I've said.
Because even when you are provided data, you ignore it. Like 42% of that increase EE was from GNG and the rest was increases in protein. And then you ignore context, like the people at 0% carbs and did glycogen depleting work outs. Again, you ignored that piece. You'd rather cherry-pick tidbits of information to support your notion.
If you remember the study you just mentioned was about LC and not IF which is what I was just posting about. Your on the wrong topic!
Nah bro. It was on GNG because I read it multiple times. Obviously, you only read the abstract.
It was about GNG but not in the context of fasting.
I know that. It was also 0% carbs and glycogen depleting workouts. Not exactly aligned to a normal diet and exercise routine. But keep ignoring those parts.
I added the IF stuff because its a meta analysis which evaluates human and animal models. So the benefits in mice arent being found in humans when compared to normal calorie restricted diets.
I'm talking about IF, why do you keep ignoring that? Energy equations apply equally to mice and men! The only way that wouldn't be true with the mice study is if the fasting made the mice excrete more of the food they ate and they didn't metabolize it compared to the mice that didn't fast.
You obviously didnt read the link. And again, your dumb article didnt link the study. But again, keep thinking that the mice model had adequate controls.1 -
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10615049/alan-aragon-on-intermittent-fasting
Some recent information of IF and it's lack of apparent benefits over standard CR. It essentially demonstrates that once again, the benefits found in animal models do not occur in human models.
Animals and humans both obey thermodynamics. Please explain how the mice lost more eating the same calories while fasting?
CICO is a static linear model that misses some things. A better model is a dynamic model that looks at deficits/surpluses at each instant of time and those effects and does not average them.
An example of how linear thinking can lead to errors:
Image a car that travels at 60 mph for 4 hours. It travels 240 miles
Now imagine the same car on the same road under the same conditions making the same trip but it travels for 2-hrs at 50 mph (100-miles) and then 70 mph for two hours (140 miles). This time the car made the 240-mile trip in four hours also. Which trip used the most gas, the first or the second or were they the same? A static linear analysis you would say it was the same. A more accurate analysis would be:
Energy to overcome drag = drag force x distance traveled (assuming constant drag force)
drag force = Cxv^2 where C is a proportionality constant
drag Energy for trip 2 / drag Energy for trip 1 = [(Cx50mph^2 x 100miles) + (Cx70mph^2 x 140miles)] / (Cx60mph^2 x 240miles) = 1.08 (trip #2 cost 8% more energy to overcome drag than trip #1 due to drag force being nonlinear with speed). Energy needed for both trips would include the energy to overcome friction also which was assumed constant. If drag was say 80% of the total energy, then 80% x 8% = 6.4% more energy for trip number 2.
In the case of fasting, calories are not burned linearly if GNG is involved and there is a penalty. 33% penalty says the article we have been talking about. Now the question is how much more GNG is there with fasting to know how much to apply the 33% penalty to. How fast things happen in real systems matters (don't average - must integrate over time).
With IF, there is a mode switch from using calories directly (not going into fat storage) to indirectly using them (fat storage then GNG). With averaging, you won't see this.
Gng isnt going to occur as you, especially as you eat carbs. And again, the added 2x protein as compared to the base, which drop most of the EE increase.
Its laughable you think this applies since no one following keto eats that much protein, that little carbs and that type of workout.
Keep thinking that you get some magical increase in EE while i sit back maintaining at 3k.
This was posted in one of the low carb threads i follow. It might help you.
http://www.tuitnutrition.com/2017/07/gluconeogenesis.html?m=1
ETA: CICO is far from linear. At best, you track by law of averages.
And ironically, my car get much better efficiency at 75 to 80 as compared to 65 or less. But you also need to consider time under load.2 -
Dude, you've beaten this horse to death multiple times in various versions on multiple threads. It is majoring in the minors and makes little practical difference in application. Maybe you want give it a rest? KWIM?
I just went into a big spill as to why it is not a minor thing. Why not refute what I said with some substance instead of just being dismissive. I keep coming back supporting this because people keep coming back saying it makes no difference and don't provide much counter arguments to what I've said.
Because even when you are provided data, you ignore it. Like 42% of that increase EE was from GNG and the rest was increases in protein. And then you ignore context, like the people at 0% carbs and did glycogen depleting work outs. Again, you ignored that piece. You'd rather cherry-pick tidbits of information to support your notion.
If you remember the study you just mentioned was about LC and not IF which is what I was just posting about. Your on the wrong topic!
Nah bro. It was on GNG because I read it multiple times. Obviously, you only read the abstract.
It was about GNG but not in the context of fasting.
I know that. It was also 0% carbs and glycogen depleting workouts. Not exactly aligned to a normal diet and exercise routine. But keep ignoring those parts.
I added the IF stuff because its a meta analysis which evaluates human and animal models. So the benefits in mice arent being found in humans when compared to normal calorie restricted diets.
I'm talking about IF, why do you keep ignoring that? Energy equations apply equally to mice and men! The only way that wouldn't be true with the mice study is if the fasting made the mice excrete more of the food they ate and they didn't metabolize it compared to the mice that didn't fast.
You obviously didnt read the link. And again, your dumb article didnt link the study. But again, keep thinking that the mice model had adequate controls.
You totally ignore the example I just gave and didn't discuss the reasoning at all.
Here you go: https://www.nature.com/articles/cr2017126
There are many more good references to support positive effects of IF and LC in the just reference article.
1 -
Dude, you've beaten this horse to death multiple times in various versions on multiple threads. It is majoring in the minors and makes little practical difference in application. Maybe you want give it a rest? KWIM?
I just went into a big spill as to why it is not a minor thing. Why not refute what I said with some substance instead of just being dismissive. I keep coming back supporting this because people keep coming back saying it makes no difference and don't provide much counter arguments to what I've said.
Because even when you are provided data, you ignore it. Like 42% of that increase EE was from GNG and the rest was increases in protein. And then you ignore context, like the people at 0% carbs and did glycogen depleting work outs. Again, you ignored that piece. You'd rather cherry-pick tidbits of information to support your notion.
If you remember the study you just mentioned was about LC and not IF which is what I was just posting about. Your on the wrong topic!
Nah bro. It was on GNG because I read it multiple times. Obviously, you only read the abstract.
It was about GNG but not in the context of fasting.
I know that. It was also 0% carbs and glycogen depleting workouts. Not exactly aligned to a normal diet and exercise routine. But keep ignoring those parts.
I added the IF stuff because its a meta analysis which evaluates human and animal models. So the benefits in mice arent being found in humans when compared to normal calorie restricted diets.
I'm talking about IF, why do you keep ignoring that? Energy equations apply equally to mice and men! The only way that wouldn't be true with the mice study is if the fasting made the mice excrete more of the food they ate and they didn't metabolize it compared to the mice that didn't fast.
You obviously didnt read the link. And again, your dumb article didnt link the study. But again, keep thinking that the mice model had adequate controls.
You totally ignore the example I just gave and didn't discuss the reasoning at all.
Here you go: https://www.nature.com/articles/cr2017126
There are many more good references to support positive effects of IF and LC in the just reference article.
It compared a restricted IF model vs AL model in mice. How does ome studied that doesnt really controll calories or have macronutrient breakouts found in humans compare to several metaanalysis? You do understand the priority of research right? If you dont human model meta analysis > single mouse study.
But hey, more power if you want to put all of your eggs in one basket.1 -
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10615049/alan-aragon-on-intermittent-fasting
Some recent information of IF and it's lack of apparent benefits over standard CR. It essentially demonstrates that once again, the benefits found in animal models do not occur in human models.
Animals and humans both obey thermodynamics. Please explain how the mice lost more eating the same calories while fasting?
CICO is a static linear model that misses some things. A better model is a dynamic model that looks at deficits/surpluses at each instant of time and those effects and does not average them.
An example of how linear thinking can lead to errors:
Image a car that travels at 60 mph for 4 hours. It travels 240 miles
Now imagine the same car on the same road under the same conditions making the same trip but it travels for 2-hrs at 50 mph (100-miles) and then 70 mph for two hours (140 miles). This time the car made the 240-mile trip in four hours also. Which trip used the most gas, the first or the second or were they the same? A static linear analysis you would say it was the same. A more accurate analysis would be:
Energy to overcome drag = drag force x distance traveled (assuming constant drag force)
drag force = Cxv^2 where C is a proportionality constant
drag Energy for trip 2 / drag Energy for trip 1 = [(Cx50mph^2 x 100miles) + (Cx70mph^2 x 140miles)] / (Cx60mph^2 x 240miles) = 1.08 (trip #2 cost 8% more energy to overcome drag than trip #1 due to drag force being nonlinear with speed). Energy needed for both trips would include the energy to overcome friction also which was assumed constant. If drag was say 80% of the total energy, then 80% x 8% = 6.4% more energy for trip number 2.
In the case of fasting, calories are not burned linearly if GNG is involved and there is a penalty. 33% penalty says the article we have been talking about. Now the question is how much more GNG is there with fasting to know how much to apply the 33% penalty to. How fast things happen in real systems matters (don't average - must integrate over time).
With IF, there is a mode switch from using calories directly (not going into fat storage) to indirectly using them (fat storage then GNG). With averaging, you won't see this.
Gng isnt going to occur as you, especially as you eat carbs. And again, the added 2x protein as compared to the base, which drop most of the EE increase.
Its laughable you think this applies since no one following keto eats that much protein, that little carbs and that type of workout.
Keep thinking that you get some magical increase in EE while i sit back maintaining at 3k.
This was posted in one of the low carb threads i follow. It might help you.
http://www.tuitnutrition.com/2017/07/gluconeogenesis.html?m=1
ETA: CICO is far from linear. At best, you track by law of averages.
And ironically, my car get much better efficiency at 75 to 80 as compared to 65 or less. But you also need to consider time under load.
You have quite the magic car then or your fuel injection sure isn't working at 65 or less. If your doing IF, your not eating protein!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm talking about IF and not KETO!!!!! I've said nothing about magic, you have with your car example! I've shown why and how there could be a metabolic advantage.
I don't think you understand the linear/non-linear argument. No we don't take calories in or use calories in a linear fashion, but averaging how many calories we eat in a day and comparing them to how much we use in a day is assuming that nothing non-linear is happening with instantaneous surpluses/deficits. That is a bad assumption.1 -
Dude, you've beaten this horse to death multiple times in various versions on multiple threads. It is majoring in the minors and makes little practical difference in application. Maybe you want give it a rest? KWIM?
I just went into a big spill as to why it is not a minor thing. Why not refute what I said with some substance instead of just being dismissive. I keep coming back supporting this because people keep coming back saying it makes no difference and don't provide much counter arguments to what I've said.
Because even when you are provided data, you ignore it. Like 42% of that increase EE was from GNG and the rest was increases in protein. And then you ignore context, like the people at 0% carbs and did glycogen depleting work outs. Again, you ignored that piece. You'd rather cherry-pick tidbits of information to support your notion.
If you remember the study you just mentioned was about LC and not IF which is what I was just posting about. Your on the wrong topic!
Nah bro. It was on GNG because I read it multiple times. Obviously, you only read the abstract.
It was about GNG but not in the context of fasting.
I know that. It was also 0% carbs and glycogen depleting workouts. Not exactly aligned to a normal diet and exercise routine. But keep ignoring those parts.
I added the IF stuff because its a meta analysis which evaluates human and animal models. So the benefits in mice arent being found in humans when compared to normal calorie restricted diets.
I'm talking about IF, why do you keep ignoring that? Energy equations apply equally to mice and men! The only way that wouldn't be true with the mice study is if the fasting made the mice excrete more of the food they ate and they didn't metabolize it compared to the mice that didn't fast.
You obviously didnt read the link. And again, your dumb article didnt link the study. But again, keep thinking that the mice model had adequate controls.
You totally ignore the example I just gave and didn't discuss the reasoning at all.
Here you go: https://www.nature.com/articles/cr2017126
There are many more good references to support positive effects of IF and LC in the just reference article.
It compared a restricted IF model vs AL model in mice. How does ome studied that doesnt really controll calories or have macronutrient breakouts found in humans compare to several metaanalysis? You do understand the priority of research right? If you dont human model meta analysis > single mouse study.
But hey, more power if you want to put all of your eggs in one basket.
They did control calories. I'm not saying IF or LC makes a huge difference but it makes some. 10%, 15%, I don't know but it isn't zero.1 -
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10615049/alan-aragon-on-intermittent-fasting
Some recent information of IF and it's lack of apparent benefits over standard CR. It essentially demonstrates that once again, the benefits found in animal models do not occur in human models.
Animals and humans both obey thermodynamics. Please explain how the mice lost more eating the same calories while fasting?
CICO is a static linear model that misses some things. A better model is a dynamic model that looks at deficits/surpluses at each instant of time and those effects and does not average them.
An example of how linear thinking can lead to errors:
Image a car that travels at 60 mph for 4 hours. It travels 240 miles
Now imagine the same car on the same road under the same conditions making the same trip but it travels for 2-hrs at 50 mph (100-miles) and then 70 mph for two hours (140 miles). This time the car made the 240-mile trip in four hours also. Which trip used the most gas, the first or the second or were they the same? A static linear analysis you would say it was the same. A more accurate analysis would be:
Energy to overcome drag = drag force x distance traveled (assuming constant drag force)
drag force = Cxv^2 where C is a proportionality constant
drag Energy for trip 2 / drag Energy for trip 1 = [(Cx50mph^2 x 100miles) + (Cx70mph^2 x 140miles)] / (Cx60mph^2 x 240miles) = 1.08 (trip #2 cost 8% more energy to overcome drag than trip #1 due to drag force being nonlinear with speed). Energy needed for both trips would include the energy to overcome friction also which was assumed constant. If drag was say 80% of the total energy, then 80% x 8% = 6.4% more energy for trip number 2.
In the case of fasting, calories are not burned linearly if GNG is involved and there is a penalty. 33% penalty says the article we have been talking about. Now the question is how much more GNG is there with fasting to know how much to apply the 33% penalty to. How fast things happen in real systems matters (don't average - must integrate over time).
With IF, there is a mode switch from using calories directly (not going into fat storage) to indirectly using them (fat storage then GNG). With averaging, you won't see this.
Gng isnt going to occur as you, especially as you eat carbs. And again, the added 2x protein as compared to the base, which drop most of the EE increase.
Its laughable you think this applies since no one following keto eats that much protein, that little carbs and that type of workout.
Keep thinking that you get some magical increase in EE while i sit back maintaining at 3k.
This was posted in one of the low carb threads i follow. It might help you.
http://www.tuitnutrition.com/2017/07/gluconeogenesis.html?m=1
ETA: CICO is far from linear. At best, you track by law of averages.
And ironically, my car get much better efficiency at 75 to 80 as compared to 65 or less. But you also need to consider time under load.
You have quite the magic car then or your fuel injection sure isn't working at 65 or less. If your doing IF, your not eating protein!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm talking about IF and not KETO!!!!! I've said nothing about magic, you have with your car example! I've shown why and how there could be a metabolic advantage.
I don't think you understand the linear/non-linear argument. No we don't take calories in or use calories in a linear fashion, but averaging how many calories we eat in a day and comparing them to how much we use in a day is assuming that nothing non-linear is happening with instantaneous surpluses/deficits. That is a bad assumption.
I am sorry if you struggle to understand cars. I have a Stage II protuned Spec B, with an ej257 bottom end. IDC ~ 70%. I take quite i few long trips which allows me to baseline data often. When i travel at 75 mph, i have 26.5 mpg. When i am at 65, its 24. But keep thinking theoretically performance > actual.1
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