Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why do people deny CICO ?
Options
Replies
-
nettiklive wrote: »
At this point I'm honestly not sure if you are so desperately trying to believe that there is some great conspiracy that you are honestly not able to understand what CICO is, or if you are just stirring the pot.
Just because there are things that change CI in ways that we can't as individuals see, doesn't mean you can't figure out your calorie goal by accurate and consistent logging and some critical thinking. People who have medical condituons, adaptive thermogenesis, or are just outliers on the fringes if normal variation can lose weight by starting with their standard calorie goal, then logging and tweaking, logging and tweaking. Yes, it's more difficult for them and that sucks. But it doesn't change the process or the equation at the foundation of the process.
Not trying to stir the pot! I'm genuinely curious about the role that things like PCOS and insulin resistance play in the weight loss process, because I'm having trouble finding credible information online. If insulin resistant people do better on low carb, why is that? Just because it cuts calories more, or is it something to do with insulin in the blood preventing fat loss, like Fung and his followers claim?
Again I'm NOT arguing CICO at its core. I'm debating the effectiveness of caloric restriction as a weight loss tool in the certain 'outliers' - forget about the perfectly healthy average person for now.
FWIW I hate the idea of keto and low carb. But I hear over and over of people, particularly those affected by issues such as PCOS and IR, unable to lose weight with a regular deficit and then losing dramatic amounts on keto or low-carb while eating more calories overall. I know there's water weight loss with low carb but these stories still seem too frequent to dismiss, and I do wonder where insulin fits into all this. I would never advocate going low carb at this point in my life - yet I'm not discounting the possibility of some people for whom it does work, due not only to lower calories but to some sort of increased insulin sensitivity or whatever the process may be. I'm not a doctor or scientist, so I'm genuinely just pondering these questions while admitting that I don't know everything; the doctors themselves in fact admit to as much, while many on this forum believe they have the only right answer figured out.
I think that LCHF is often better for people with PCOS and IR because it does lower insulin. Those with IR already have an excessively high amount of insulin floating around, and insulin is an energy storage hormone. It is going to want to store the energy you eat so first it will store the fat. Higher carb and moderate or higher fat is often a disaster for people with IR because dietary fat is being stored as fat and insulin is still being kept high so you store more fat and insulin stays high... It can be a bad cycle.
If one cuts carbs, insulin levels drop enough that dietary fat is no longer automatically being stored. If one goes very low carb for some months they become fat adapted and they become better at using fat for fuel, and not storage. Weight loss becomes a bit easier than when carbs and fat are both moderate to high.
Ornish, with his low fat high carb, is also known to help. You will have higher carb, but hopefully it is fibre rich to help keep BG and insulin response not too high, but even if it is a bit high, there is very little dietary fat to store.
This video with Dr Naimen is quite good. He comes from a low carb bias but is quick to say it is not for everyone, but it may be better for those with IR, as is an Ornish style of diet.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JipRwP754jA
Everyone stores fat when they eat. It's how your body functions. You burn fat at rest.
What insulin does is inhibit the burning of fat BUT if you're eating at a deficit, you're still going to burn fat.
My understanding is that low carbing helps people with IR not because it's messing with insulin levels but because people with IR have issues with ghrelin and leptin and the macro mix helps their satiety and compliance. The compliance leads to weight loss, which increases insulin sensitivity.18 -
Where is that awesome button when you need it...8
-
Dunno13 -
nettiklive wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
I'm not making it personal per se.
I do think you're not applying critical thinking, and are spinning yourself into a tizzy of worry because of it.
You're giving more weight to personal anecdotes than scientific evidence. Read metabolic ward studies and scientific papers. They have more validity. Knowing how to vet sources and how much weight to give evidence is important when evaluating sources of information.
I'm honestly not *worried*. I'm confused.
Not just with weight. There are many health issues I have trouble wading through. For instance I have a chronic health issue that's fairly mild but annoying. Regular doctors have shrugged it off as nothing they can do. Naturopathic doctors have suggested eliminating gluten and dairy as the first step to try, which I haven't done because honestly these are the only things I enjoy eating, I don't see a correlation between consuming them and symptoms timing-wise, and at this point I'd rather have the symptoms than give them up lol. Plus, I'm honestly skeptical about this whole scapegoating gluten in everything trend lately; I feel like it's way overdiagnosed. But at the same time I can't state for certain that it won't work - because I haven't tried! It helped others resolve similar issues so who knows. I can be skeptical but I'm not arrogant enough to claim it's all BS because I don't have all the knowledge.
I feel similarly about metabolic issues. I *want* to believe that every overweight person out there is simply eating too much, but I can't say I know this for a fact. I feel like at least a few could be eating at what is considered a low calorie intake (1200 let's say or close to that) and yet are unable to lose for various reasons. Again, doesn't deny CICO. But sure makes it difficult to lose the weight.
Trust me, those scenarios only happen to people on Tumblr.
I used to believe those same sorts of things.
I used to believe I was one of those people.
Every person who claims they are consuming a certain number of calories and not losing weight and it sounds sketchy? They're really bad at counting calories.
Watch this video. It's one of the first things I saw when I joined these forums and it was an eye opener:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA9AdlhB18o 17 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Everyone stores fat when they eat. It's how your body functions. You burn fat at rest.
What insulin does is inhibit the burning of fat BUT if you're eating at a deficit, you're still going to burn fat.
My understanding is that low carbing helps people with IR not because it's messing with insulin levels but because people with IR have issues with ghrelin and leptin and the macro mix helps their satiety and compliance. The compliance leads to weight loss, which increases insulin sensitivity.
Thank you for the explanation, that's what I was looking for.
The bolded is what was throwing me off - as so much of what I was reading about insulin and weight loss seemed to revolve around insulin's role and increasing insulin sensitivity as the key to much more efficient fat burning. IF, keto, exercising in a fasted state, all seem to revolve around this notion that the body can't burn fat, or at least is much much worse at it, while there are high insulin levles present in the blood, and of course that is exacerbated for those already IR. The point being that the actual burning of fat is a more complex process than is implied on here. I don't have the biochemical base to know whether this is in fact true, and it's hard to wrap my head around the bolded statement as it sounds like a bit of an oxymoron.6 -
nettiklive wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Everyone stores fat when they eat. It's how your body functions. You burn fat at rest.
What insulin does is inhibit the burning of fat BUT if you're eating at a deficit, you're still going to burn fat.
My understanding is that low carbing helps people with IR not because it's messing with insulin levels but because people with IR have issues with ghrelin and leptin and the macro mix helps their satiety and compliance. The compliance leads to weight loss, which increases insulin sensitivity.
Thank you for the explanation, that's what I was looking for.
The bolded is what was throwing me off - as so much of what I was reading about insulin and weight loss seemed to revolve around insulin's role and increasing insulin sensitivity as the key to much more efficient fat burning. IF, keto, exercising in a fasted state, all seem to revolve around this notion that the body can't burn fat, or at least is much much worse at it, while there are high insulin levles present in the blood, and of course that is exacerbated for those already IR. I don't have the biochemical base to know whether this is in fact true, and it's hard to wrap my head around the bolded statement as it sounds like a bit of an oxymoron.
Inhibit != Prohibit.5 -
nettiklive wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Everyone stores fat when they eat. It's how your body functions. You burn fat at rest.
What insulin does is inhibit the burning of fat BUT if you're eating at a deficit, you're still going to burn fat.
My understanding is that low carbing helps people with IR not because it's messing with insulin levels but because people with IR have issues with ghrelin and leptin and the macro mix helps their satiety and compliance. The compliance leads to weight loss, which increases insulin sensitivity.
Thank you for the explanation, that's what I was looking for.
The bolded is what was throwing me off - as so much of what I was reading about insulin and weight loss seemed to revolve around insulin's role and increasing insulin sensitivity as the key to much more efficient fat burning. IF, keto, exercising in a fasted state, all seem to revolve around this notion that the body can't burn fat, or at least is much much worse at it, while there are high insulin levles present in the blood, and of course that is exacerbated for those already IR. I don't have the biochemical base to know whether this is in fact true, and it's hard to wrap my head around the bolded statement as it sounds like a bit of an oxymoron.
You're welcome.
The context of calories is what's important in the hormone discussions, and this is why it's always stressed that calories are king.
Back when I first joined, another claim that used to get made by low carbers a lot (they don't make it much any more, but some newbies do, and this isn't a dig against them, it's a dig against the shills peddling books about it) is that carbs turn to fat and get stored as fat and that's why low carbing is good.
Well, carbs very rarely get turned to fat (this process is known as de novo lipogensis) and when they do, it's never in a calorie deficit. There's that context of calorie intake again.
Excess caloric intake causes dietary fat to get stored as fat and remain stored (fat gets stored and burned as needed throughout the day all the time), it's the most economic path for your body to process food, so that's the one that happens. Energy balance (calories) is the final arbiter. Thankfully, most knowledgeable people in the low carb community are up on the science of this now.9 -
nettiklive wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Everyone stores fat when they eat. It's how your body functions. You burn fat at rest.
What insulin does is inhibit the burning of fat BUT if you're eating at a deficit, you're still going to burn fat.
My understanding is that low carbing helps people with IR not because it's messing with insulin levels but because people with IR have issues with ghrelin and leptin and the macro mix helps their satiety and compliance. The compliance leads to weight loss, which increases insulin sensitivity.
Thank you for the explanation, that's what I was looking for.
The bolded is what was throwing me off - as so much of what I was reading about insulin and weight loss seemed to revolve around insulin's role and increasing insulin sensitivity as the key to much more efficient fat burning. IF, keto, exercising in a fasted state, all seem to revolve around this notion that the body can't burn fat, or at least is much much worse at it, while there are high insulin levles present in the blood, and of course that is exacerbated for those already IR. I don't have the biochemical base to know whether this is in fact true, and it's hard to wrap my head around the bolded statement as it sounds like a bit of an oxymoron.
Inhibit != Prohibit.
Additionally, lipolysis (fat burning) happens just fine between meals and at night during sleep when insulin levels are lower.6 -
nettiklive wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
It doesn't matter what percentage it is. We're debating simply the physiological possibility that these outliers may in fact exist. If even one person like that exists in the world, it means that there is some mechanism by which the calorie burning/ weight loss process does not work as expected. It's not about debating the physical principle of CICO, but applying it to human weight loss through a reasonably sustainable caloric deficit, and that is what people are suggesting may not always occur as it should on paper. Just like gravity exists for everyone yet birds are able to fly while mammals cannot.
Oh you mean the ones that are afflicted by S.S.S - Special Snowflake Syndrome?5 -
soufauxgirl wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
It doesn't matter what percentage it is. We're debating simply the physiological possibility that these outliers may in fact exist. If even one person like that exists in the world, it means that there is some mechanism by which the calorie burning/ weight loss process does not work as expected. It's not about debating the physical principle of CICO, but applying it to human weight loss through a reasonably sustainable caloric deficit, and that is what people are suggesting may not always occur as it should on paper. Just like gravity exists for everyone yet birds are able to fly while mammals cannot.
Oh you mean the ones that are afflicted by S.S.S - Special Snowflake Syndrome?
Well, it’s been described in the literature, so it’s clearly physiologically possible. That’s not up for debate. I haven’t seen any research that tries to estimate how common it is. Individual physiologic and endocrine adaptation to an energy deficit will presumably follow a normal distribution curve, like most things in nature. So it’s not a leap of logic to suggest that there are people at both ends of the continuum...those who will struggle mightily to lose weight and can’t tolerate large energy deficits, and those that either lose extremely easily or, more likely, never have to deal with obesity because of their exquisite adaptatation to an energy intake surplus. The more interesting question is the genetic basis for these extremes, and whether or not real world treatment options emerge from that research.10 -
Nobody in this thread actually reads links, but what the heck:soufauxgirl wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
It doesn't matter what percentage it is. We're debating simply the physiological possibility that these outliers may in fact exist. If even one person like that exists in the world, it means that there is some mechanism by which the calorie burning/ weight loss process does not work as expected. It's not about debating the physical principle of CICO, but applying it to human weight loss through a reasonably sustainable caloric deficit, and that is what people are suggesting may not always occur as it should on paper. Just like gravity exists for everyone yet birds are able to fly while mammals cannot.
Oh you mean the ones that are afflicted by S.S.S - Special Snowflake Syndrome?
Well, it’s been described in the literature, so it’s clearly physiologically possible. That’s not up for debate. I haven’t seen any research that tries to estimate how common it is. Individual physiologic and endocrine adaptation to an energy deficit will presumably follow a normal distribution curve, like most things in nature. So it’s not a leap of logic to suggest that there are people at both ends of the continuum...those who will struggle mightily to lose weight and can’t tolerate large energy deficits, and those that either lose extremely easily or, more likely, never have to deal with obesity because of their exquisite adaptatation to an energy intake surplus. The more interesting question is the genetic basis for these extremes, and whether or not real world treatment options emerge from that research.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html/
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
(About the third or fourth time I've linked this one)
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/18 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »
At this point I'm honestly not sure if you are so desperately trying to believe that there is some great conspiracy that you are honestly not able to understand what CICO is, or if you are just stirring the pot.
Just because there are things that change CI in ways that we can't as individuals see, doesn't mean you can't figure out your calorie goal by accurate and consistent logging and some critical thinking. People who have medical condituons, adaptive thermogenesis, or are just outliers on the fringes if normal variation can lose weight by starting with their standard calorie goal, then logging and tweaking, logging and tweaking. Yes, it's more difficult for them and that sucks. But it doesn't change the process or the equation at the foundation of the process.
Not trying to stir the pot! I'm genuinely curious about the role that things like PCOS and insulin resistance play in the weight loss process, because I'm having trouble finding credible information online. If insulin resistant people do better on low carb, why is that? Just because it cuts calories more, or is it something to do with insulin in the blood preventing fat loss, like Fung and his followers claim?
Again I'm NOT arguing CICO at its core. I'm debating the effectiveness of caloric restriction as a weight loss tool in the certain 'outliers' - forget about the perfectly healthy average person for now.
FWIW I hate the idea of keto and low carb. But I hear over and over of people, particularly those affected by issues such as PCOS and IR, unable to lose weight with a regular deficit and then losing dramatic amounts on keto or low-carb while eating more calories overall. I know there's water weight loss with low carb but these stories still seem too frequent to dismiss, and I do wonder where insulin fits into all this. I would never advocate going low carb at this point in my life - yet I'm not discounting the possibility of some people for whom it does work, due not only to lower calories but to some sort of increased insulin sensitivity or whatever the process may be. I'm not a doctor or scientist, so I'm genuinely just pondering these questions while admitting that I don't know everything; the doctors themselves in fact admit to as much, while many on this forum believe they have the only right answer figured out.
I think that LCHF is often better for people with PCOS and IR because it does lower insulin. Those with IR already have an excessively high amount of insulin floating around, and insulin is an energy storage hormone. It is going to want to store the energy you eat so first it will store the fat. Higher carb and moderate or higher fat is often a disaster for people with IR because dietary fat is being stored as fat and insulin is still being kept high so you store more fat and insulin stays high... It can be a bad cycle.
If one cuts carbs, insulin levels drop enough that dietary fat is no longer automatically being stored. If one goes very low carb for some months they become fat adapted and they become better at using fat for fuel, and not storage. Weight loss becomes a bit easier than when carbs and fat are both moderate to high.
Ornish, with his low fat high carb, is also known to help. You will have higher carb, but hopefully it is fibre rich to help keep BG and insulin response not too high, but even if it is a bit high, there is very little dietary fat to store.
This video with Dr Naimen is quite good. He comes from a low carb bias but is quick to say it is not for everyone, but it may be better for those with IR, as is an Ornish style of diet.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JipRwP754jA
Everyone stores fat when they eat. It's how your body functions. You burn fat at rest.
What insulin does is inhibit the burning of fat BUT if you're eating at a deficit, you're still going to burn fat.
My understanding is that low carbing helps people with IR not because it's messing with insulin levels but because people with IR have issues with ghrelin and leptin and the macro mix helps their satiety and compliance. The compliance leads to weight loss, which increases insulin sensitivity.
I agree with the bolded. It is basically what I said but from a different angle.
But IR is NOT always about weight, except maybe if you are talking about fat on the organs like the liver. Normal weight IR is not rare, and is more common in some countries. If your IR is not from being fat, then losing weight is not a huge help.
Consider how low carb or keto helps people reverse IR and normalize BG before there is any weight loss. Low carbing helps people with IR because it brings down insulin. Weight loss depends on how much they eat.
But this is off topic. I only responded to a specific question that wasn't being answered up thread. CICO explains why weight is lost, IR and what diet you use to treat it are just factors that affect what you CO or CI is.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
If I take up a project, like building a bookshelf, there may be many factors that compromise my ability to complete it flawlessly. My severe procrastination, my terrible skills at measuring things, the fact that my clumsy self is guaranteed to drop a hammer on my foot at some point, the fight I'll probably have with my husband as he tries to help me out and I defensively snipe at him. All of these things will be factors in how successful my bookshelf is, but none of them are going to change the instructions of how to build a bookshelf.
They're all, arguably, good things to know about myself so that I can factor them into the planning. Just like someone who wants to lose weight does better, overall, if they know certain things about themselves (like pizza being a trigger food for their ED). But I wouldn't download instructions on how to build a bookshelf and get frustrated because they didn't have time management tips for procrastinators, first aid instructions for foot injuries, or advice on how to solve marital conflict included in them.
In this analogy, if you just happen to get a box where one of the parts is missing or a board is cracked, you can follow instructions to a T and the shelf still won't hold together properly when you put it up. This is not a problem with the instructions or your execution of them but it's still a problem. And likely you'll only have one defective box out of, I don't know, several thousand. So if you go on a DIY support forum and swear up and down that you're following the instructions properly, people shouldn't believe you because it is so very unlikely that you have a defective part. After all, they all put theirs together just fine based on the same instructions and it worked! You MUST have missed a step somewhere.
Usually the instructions for this sort of thing includes an inventory list. ... Just sayin'. So presumably, if you're missing a piece, you would know if you read the instructions.
I cannot believe how patient some of the other people in this forum are.
That, and it seems highly reminiscent of the threads we see where - on page 2 or 3 - oh, yeah OP has undisclosed medical issues (aka the cracked board). Oh, you have PCOS? Yeah - low carb would probably be a really good idea for you. But, until that was disclosed, there was no reason for anyone to think OP would "need" low-carb.
So why would a low carb diet be a good idea for PCOS, and why would having PCOS even matter if it's ALL down to CICO (and low carb only works due to cutting out calories)??
Because people with PCOS often have insulin resistance, and for them (and that), a low carb diet is helpful. It is all down to calories, but certain medical conditions can muddy the waters. Even on a low carb diet, you still need to count calories.
Speaking of insulin resistance - all the Fung sycophants spout his malarkey about insulin being the cause of obesity. Would it not make sense, then, that being insulin resistant would actually make it easier to lose weight, since you're not as prone to insulin causing fat storage as he claims? His entire theory about the cause of obesity hinges around insulin and he's an adamant CICO denier despite mountains of science proving he's wrong. He sure sells a lot of books, though. P.T. Barnum was right about a sucker being born every minute.
Not really.
He actually says that for those with insulin resistance they may have a harder time losing weight because of the higher circulating insulin levels... Fasting and low carb will help to lower that level of insulin which can make it easier for those with IR to lose weight, as seen in some studies (A to Z I think?).
I would not call Fung a CICO denier. He knows that you need CI<CO in order to lose weight. His book (Obesity Code - I'm re-reading it now because I have nothing new to read) discusses how other factors will affect CO and CI which can make it very hard to lose weight. Factors like lowered body temp; leptin, ghrelin, & insulin changes; high carb diets in those with IR; eating too frequently (in those with IR); slower metabolism when faced with a large caloric deficit over a long period of time; and even not enough protein. That's all. It's about how those factors affect CICO.
That's even worse because he's essentially saying the sole existence of insulin makes you gain weight. IR people have higher resting insulin amounts because the insulin isn't doing it's job at the normal amounts. If it's not doing its job, it can't make you gain weight if that's your theory. He's saying insulin just sitting there doing nothing is somehow making you gain weight.
He does not say if insulin is in existence that you will gain too much weight, nor does he say that is its only purpose, but excessive insulin, due to IR somewhere (organs, brain, muscle, where ever - IR is not uniform throughout the body but tends to affect some areas) can make it harder to reach a calorie deficit. He says people need to take responsibility for that fact and do things that will help lower that insulin level like lose weight by eating a low carb diet, fasting, and getting some exercise. Doing those things will make weight management easier. Injecting insulin rather than eating low carb tends to make matters worse. Many with IR find that they gain even more weight once they add exogenous insulin. Many find weight gain becomes easier once endogenous insulin starts staying too high too. That was me, I gained weight after IR was started.
Plus he is not saying it is all about insulin. That is one hormone that makes a difference but he addresses other factors in his book. But even if it was, insulin is doing its job still otherwise we would waste away to nothing. There is just too much of it in response to carbs, and protein to a lesser degree.
People who are IR have high insulin because normal amounts of insulin don't do the job anymore, including the "store energy" part. The existence of higher amounts of insulin in an IR patient does not create more fat storage because the amount they have which is high does the work of the amount that is normal in someone who is not IR.
Like someone who got used to taking painkillers needing higher doses to get the same effect as a normal person taking a lower dose.
Possibly. I think it is unlikely.
IR does not seem to apply to fat storage or T2 diabetics would get skinnier over time, and really start losing weight once they started injecting insulin. We know the opposite is true - those with IR gain more weight as insulin rises, and injected insulin often leads to more weight gain.
It's more likely that the IR applies to the body's ability to clear the blood of excess glucose. That seems to suffer more a T2D's ability to gain weight.
2 -
CICO works for overweight people but once you're trying to achieve certain results it gets more complicated than that. If I want to keep my bf% below 12 it's next to impossible for me unless I keep carbs low. Not keto low but in the 100 gr range. Tweaks to my macros have always helped get past certain sticking points. If you're weight training heavy and intense and not getting enough protein you'll go catabolic instead of anabolic. Nitrogen isn't found in fats or carbs so they can't be converted into protein.
And IR also plays a role in muscle development. So food timing comes into play as well. I also train fasted and follow an IF regimen. That too has helped me reach goals and maintain body composition when just using CICO weren't effective at all.
I was also one of those people that made fun of the anti gluten crowd. Then, about 4 months ago I decided to experiment with eliminating gluten from my diet for the supposed anti inflammatory effect and I was really skeptical. No longer. eliminating gluten along with incorporating foods that were good for my gut biome have resulted in a major reduction in joint pain and a better overall feeling of well being. When i cheat and go overboard with a pizza or refined sugars my body definitely responds negatively and within 24 hours. Bloating and lethargy always follow.
I realize that my views are anecdotal and from personal experience though science is starting to back them up more and more. I also understand that I'm using advanced nutritional techniques in order to keep bf at 10, raise my personal best on a specific lift or knock some time off of the swim or run of my tri times. For someone 30 lbs overweight CICO will probably work just fine. For those of us trying to take it to the next level playing with the timing and macros of those calories can make a huge difference.15 -
Nobody in this thread actually reads links, but what the heck:soufauxgirl wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
It doesn't matter what percentage it is. We're debating simply the physiological possibility that these outliers may in fact exist. If even one person like that exists in the world, it means that there is some mechanism by which the calorie burning/ weight loss process does not work as expected. It's not about debating the physical principle of CICO, but applying it to human weight loss through a reasonably sustainable caloric deficit, and that is what people are suggesting may not always occur as it should on paper. Just like gravity exists for everyone yet birds are able to fly while mammals cannot.
Oh you mean the ones that are afflicted by S.S.S - Special Snowflake Syndrome?
Well, it’s been described in the literature, so it’s clearly physiologically possible. That’s not up for debate. I haven’t seen any research that tries to estimate how common it is. Individual physiologic and endocrine adaptation to an energy deficit will presumably follow a normal distribution curve, like most things in nature. So it’s not a leap of logic to suggest that there are people at both ends of the continuum...those who will struggle mightily to lose weight and can’t tolerate large energy deficits, and those that either lose extremely easily or, more likely, never have to deal with obesity because of their exquisite adaptatation to an energy intake surplus. The more interesting question is the genetic basis for these extremes, and whether or not real world treatment options emerge from that research.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html/
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
(About the third or fourth time I've linked this one)
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
Thanks, but I’ll stick with the peer reviewed literature. Since it’s what I actually do for a living I find it easier to navigate, and more thorough, than the MFP summaries.18 -
Nobody in this thread actually reads links, but what the heck:soufauxgirl wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
It doesn't matter what percentage it is. We're debating simply the physiological possibility that these outliers may in fact exist. If even one person like that exists in the world, it means that there is some mechanism by which the calorie burning/ weight loss process does not work as expected. It's not about debating the physical principle of CICO, but applying it to human weight loss through a reasonably sustainable caloric deficit, and that is what people are suggesting may not always occur as it should on paper. Just like gravity exists for everyone yet birds are able to fly while mammals cannot.
Oh you mean the ones that are afflicted by S.S.S - Special Snowflake Syndrome?
Well, it’s been described in the literature, so it’s clearly physiologically possible. That’s not up for debate. I haven’t seen any research that tries to estimate how common it is. Individual physiologic and endocrine adaptation to an energy deficit will presumably follow a normal distribution curve, like most things in nature. So it’s not a leap of logic to suggest that there are people at both ends of the continuum...those who will struggle mightily to lose weight and can’t tolerate large energy deficits, and those that either lose extremely easily or, more likely, never have to deal with obesity because of their exquisite adaptatation to an energy intake surplus. The more interesting question is the genetic basis for these extremes, and whether or not real world treatment options emerge from that research.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html/
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
(About the third or fourth time I've linked this one)
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
Thanks, but I’ll stick with the peer reviewed literature. Since it’s what I actually do for a living I find it easier to navigate, and more thorough, than the MFP summaries.
Those aren’t MFP summaries - Lyle McDonald is one of the leading experts in nutrition - along with Alan Argon
9 -
Nobody in this thread actually reads links, but what the heck:soufauxgirl wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
It doesn't matter what percentage it is. We're debating simply the physiological possibility that these outliers may in fact exist. If even one person like that exists in the world, it means that there is some mechanism by which the calorie burning/ weight loss process does not work as expected. It's not about debating the physical principle of CICO, but applying it to human weight loss through a reasonably sustainable caloric deficit, and that is what people are suggesting may not always occur as it should on paper. Just like gravity exists for everyone yet birds are able to fly while mammals cannot.
Oh you mean the ones that are afflicted by S.S.S - Special Snowflake Syndrome?
Well, it’s been described in the literature, so it’s clearly physiologically possible. That’s not up for debate. I haven’t seen any research that tries to estimate how common it is. Individual physiologic and endocrine adaptation to an energy deficit will presumably follow a normal distribution curve, like most things in nature. So it’s not a leap of logic to suggest that there are people at both ends of the continuum...those who will struggle mightily to lose weight and can’t tolerate large energy deficits, and those that either lose extremely easily or, more likely, never have to deal with obesity because of their exquisite adaptatation to an energy intake surplus. The more interesting question is the genetic basis for these extremes, and whether or not real world treatment options emerge from that research.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html/
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
(About the third or fourth time I've linked this one)
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
Thanks, but I’ll stick with the peer reviewed literature. Since it’s what I actually do for a living I find it easier to navigate, and more thorough, than the MFP summaries.
Know how I can tell you didn't read the links?
Or is this a case of "if the facts don't conform to the theory, the facts must be disregarded"?15 -
joeydahatt wrote: »CICO works for overweight people but once you're trying to achieve certain results it gets more complicated than that. If I want to keep my bf% below 12 it's next to impossible for me unless I keep carbs low. Not keto low but in the 100 gr range. Tweaks to my macros have always helped get past certain sticking points. If you're weight training heavy and intense and not getting enough protein you'll go catabolic instead of anabolic. Nitrogen isn't found in fats or carbs so they can't be converted into protein.
And IR also plays a role in muscle development. So food timing comes into play as well. I also train fasted and follow an IF regimen. That too has helped me reach goals and maintain body composition when just using CICO weren't effective at all.
I was also one of those people that made fun of the anti gluten crowd. Then, about 4 months ago I decided to experiment with eliminating gluten from my diet for the supposed anti inflammatory effect and I was really skeptical. No longer. eliminating gluten along with incorporating foods that were good for my gut biome have resulted in a major reduction in joint pain and a better overall feeling of well being. When i cheat and go overboard with a pizza or refined sugars my body definitely responds negatively and within 24 hours. Bloating and lethargy always follow.
I realize that my views are anecdotal and from personal experience though science is starting to back them up more and more. I also understand that I'm using advanced nutritional techniques in order to keep bf at 10, raise my personal best on a specific lift or knock some time off of the swim or run of my tri times. For someone 30 lbs overweight CICO will probably work just fine. For those of us trying to take it to the next level playing with the timing and macros of those calories can make a huge difference.
sold me
* shrug2 -
deannalfisher wrote: »
Nobody in this thread actually reads links, but what the heck:soufauxgirl wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sure it has. It’s not common. It’s probably quite rare. Has it been reported? Yes. See Table 2 for Patient details. Truth is there is significant inter-individual variation in the extent of adaptive thermogenesis relative to the energy deficit.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.2.6.651?needAccess=true
A study on 2 whole people, huh?
I think you might need to reread the article.
The article shares details about the case studies of three people -- two men who were on an extended expedition and a woman who was participating in a weight loss study. Table 2 is about the woman. The point: this is a very small amount of data from which to begin drawing conclusions that might apply more widely.
The article makes no claim for generalizability. In the context of a larger study it discusses a woman whose metabolic adaptation to energy restriction exceeded the energy deficit, resulting in weight gain on a lower calorie diet. I think they’re clear that they are reporting on one end of the spectrum of inter-individual variation in metabolic adaptation to an energy deficit. The majority of individuals lost weight exactly as expected. I shared the article because there is a firmly held belief in this Community that it is impossible to gain weight after cutting calories. Because of the over emphasis on the CI component of CICO, the answer to stalled weight loss is almost always “you’re eating more than you think you are”, or “eat less”. There exist some unfortunate individuals for whom that advice is both demotivating and simply wrong. So a little compassion when they post asking for help might be in order.
You are talking about the .0099% of the population, the outliers. On threads like those. chime in with your advice see if that helps them.
It doesn't matter what percentage it is. We're debating simply the physiological possibility that these outliers may in fact exist. If even one person like that exists in the world, it means that there is some mechanism by which the calorie burning/ weight loss process does not work as expected. It's not about debating the physical principle of CICO, but applying it to human weight loss through a reasonably sustainable caloric deficit, and that is what people are suggesting may not always occur as it should on paper. Just like gravity exists for everyone yet birds are able to fly while mammals cannot.
Oh you mean the ones that are afflicted by S.S.S - Special Snowflake Syndrome?
Well, it’s been described in the literature, so it’s clearly physiologically possible. That’s not up for debate. I haven’t seen any research that tries to estimate how common it is. Individual physiologic and endocrine adaptation to an energy deficit will presumably follow a normal distribution curve, like most things in nature. So it’s not a leap of logic to suggest that there are people at both ends of the continuum...those who will struggle mightily to lose weight and can’t tolerate large energy deficits, and those that either lose extremely easily or, more likely, never have to deal with obesity because of their exquisite adaptatation to an energy intake surplus. The more interesting question is the genetic basis for these extremes, and whether or not real world treatment options emerge from that research.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html/
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
(About the third or fourth time I've linked this one)
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
Thanks, but I’ll stick with the peer reviewed literature. Since it’s what I actually do for a living I find it easier to navigate, and more thorough, than the MFP summaries.
Those aren’t MFP summaries - Lyle McDonald is one of the leading experts in nutrition - along with Alan Argon
They’re probably fine. I just prefer to go right to the peer reviewed research sources, rather than relying on someone else’s summary of it. If it’s a peer reviewed journal review I’m fine with that. I’m just cautious about non-peer reviewed blog and website articles, regardless of the authors credentials.There are lots of good peer reviewed reviews available. I’d suggest starting with Pubmed. Most college and public libraries will allow you to get behind the journal paywalls and access the entire article, not just the abstract.
* And Lyle McDonald is not a nutritionist. He has an undergraduate degree in kinesiology and a background in personal training. So while he has undoubtably lots of good advice to give, from years of self-study, it’s not a substitute for looking at the actual research.11 -
stevencloser wrote: »Seriously, how do you live? You can't keep any appointments because the time on your clock isn't absolutely 100% perfectly correct always.
I don't know what to wear on a summer's day because I don't know the exact temperature.
I can't bake a cake because I don't know the exact quantities of the ingredients
I can't put furniture in my house because I don't know its exact dimensions
I can't stick to the speed limit because I don't know exactly how fast my car is going.
Surely people can see the difference between abstract scientific or mathematical exact measurements and real life applications.
11
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K 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
- 391 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions