Clearly CICO has no bearing on my recent weight loss
Options
Replies
-
Dude, you've beaten this horse to death multiple times in various versions on multiple threads. It is majoring in the minors and makes little practical difference in application. Maybe you want give it a rest? KWIM?
I just went into a big spill as to why it is not a minor thing. Why not refute what I said with some substance instead of just being dismissive. I keep coming back supporting this because people keep coming back saying it makes no difference and don't provide much counter arguments to what I've said.
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
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 952 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions