Science undecided of CICO?
Replies
-
deannalfisher wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Cookies In, Cookies Out works for me. Oh, and Cake.
as long as it doesn't stand for carrots in, carrots out
But, carrot cake...
4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Cookies In, Cookies Out works for me. Oh, and Cake.
If your body is producing cookies you might want to go get that checked out.
I was in the middle of typing 'Cannoli In Crap Out'5 -
deannalfisher wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Cookies In, Cookies Out works for me. Oh, and Cake.
as long as it doesn't stand for carrots in, carrots out
But, carrot cake...
sooo wrong! vegetables don't belong in cake!4 -
deannalfisher wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Cookies In, Cookies Out works for me. Oh, and Cake.
as long as it doesn't stand for carrots in, carrots out
But, carrot cake...
What is it with you people and cake? Has no one here ever tried pie?!?
4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Cookies In, Cookies Out works for me. Oh, and Cake.
If your body is producing cookies you might want to go get that checked out.
I was in the middle of typing 'Cannoli In Crap Out'
Just wanted to make sure that what your body does produce isn't being mistaken for cookie dough.7 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »Cookies In, Cookies Out works for me. Oh, and Cake.
Real-life picture of snickerscharlie:
19 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Just wanted to make sure that what your body does produce isn't being mistaken for cookie dough.
3 -
deannalfisher wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Cookies In, Cookies Out works for me. Oh, and Cake.
as long as it doesn't stand for carrots in, carrots out
But, carrot cake...
What is it with you people and cake? Has no one here ever tried pie?!?
Sometimes you just have to accept being in the minority.
4 -
deannalfisher wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Cookies In, Cookies Out works for me. Oh, and Cake.
as long as it doesn't stand for carrots in, carrots out
But, carrot cake...
sooo wrong! vegetables don't belong in cake!
I have a zucchini that refuses to let itself be stifled by other people's ideas of what it has to be. It wants to be cake, goldarnit!15 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Cookies In, Cookies Out works for me. Oh, and Cake.
as long as it doesn't stand for carrots in, carrots out
But, carrot cake...
sooo wrong! vegetables don't belong in cake!
I have a zucchini that refuses to let itself be stifled by other people's ideas of what it has to be. It wants to be cake, goldarnit!
Zucchini should be in bread - zucchini bread is the bomb - not in cake. Oh, and a second vote for pie!!6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Sometimes you just have to accept being in the minority.
Accept that my opinion is not universally correct? You have apparently never met me.
9 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Cookies In, Cookies Out works for me. Oh, and Cake.
as long as it doesn't stand for carrots in, carrots out
But, carrot cake...
sooo wrong! vegetables don't belong in cake!
I have a zucchini that refuses to let itself be stifled by other people's ideas of what it has to be. It wants to be cake, goldarnit!
Zucchini should be in bread - zucchini bread is the bomb - not in cake. Oh, and a second vote for pie!!
Oh, Zucchini is a fruit.
And another vote for pie.1 -
A video of Dr. Bikman (professor at BYU) discussing some aspects of a caloric vs. hormonal model of weight loss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t1JN0RgvO4 14 -
deannalfisher wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Cookies In, Cookies Out works for me. Oh, and Cake.
as long as it doesn't stand for carrots in, carrots out
But, carrot cake...
What is it with you people and cake? Has no one here ever tried pie?!?
Sorry, but that would be PIPO, and we're in the CICO cult. You need to get your physics straight.13 -
deannalfisher wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Cookies In, Cookies Out works for me. Oh, and Cake.
as long as it doesn't stand for carrots in, carrots out
But, carrot cake...
What is it with you people and cake? Has no one here ever tried pie?!?
Sorry, but that would be PIPO, and we're in the CICO cult. You need to get your physics straight.
At least my cult will never be pronounced 'sicko' or 'pyscho'.
4 -
deannalfisher wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Cookies In, Cookies Out works for me. Oh, and Cake.
as long as it doesn't stand for carrots in, carrots out
But, carrot cake...
What is it with you people and cake? Has no one here ever tried pie?!?
Sorry, but that would be PIPO, and we're in the CICO cult. You need to get your physics straight.
At least my cult will never be pronounced 'sicko' or 'pyscho'.
SEE-ko3 -
deannalfisher wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Cookies In, Cookies Out works for me. Oh, and Cake.
as long as it doesn't stand for carrots in, carrots out
But, carrot cake...
What is it with you people and cake? Has no one here ever tried pie?!?
Sorry, but that would be PIPO, and we're in the CICO cult. You need to get your physics straight.
At least my cult will never be pronounced 'sicko' or 'pyscho'.
Might be pee-poo, though.8 -
A video of Dr. Bikman (professor at BYU) discussing some aspects of a caloric vs. hormonal model of weight losshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t1JN0RgvO4
Anyone want to check that video out? Just from looking up the dude he looks like a keto zealot.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »Anyone want to check that video out? Just from looking up the dude he looks like a keto zealot.
Glad to see you have an open mind and are willing to look at information that conflicts with your understanding - the scientific method requires constant challenging. Clearly its not worth listening to a professor from Brigham Young University, what could he possibly know that you don't? Even if he is a keto zealot - why aren't you interested in learning what scientific evidence leads such a large community of educated people to have come to different conclusions than your? Are you just interested in tribalism where evidence and reason play know role in the debate?
To look at the current state of health in America and the world, and the fairly radical shift in a relatively short period of time, and conclude that 100% of the problem is non-complaint people and that we are certain that the current guidelines/guidance from the health/medical community are totally correct and accurate and clearly not the problem and therefore doesn't need to be continually examined and questioned seems ridiculous to me.
CICO may be a simple enough of a black box to work for many people, but it doesn't work that way in the long run for many others and I continue to believe that we need to open up the black box and figure out whats going on at a deeper level (which I think the hormonal model begins to do).
30 -
stevencloser wrote: »A video of Dr. Bikman (professor at BYU) discussing some aspects of a caloric vs. hormonal model of weight losshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t1JN0RgvO4
Anyone want to check that video out? Just from looking up the dude he looks like a keto zealot.
Ya...not particularly. I didn't make it past the first line of his website.
http://www.insuliniq.com/
4 -
stevencloser wrote: »Anyone want to check that video out? Just from looking up the dude he looks like a keto zealot.
Glad to see you have an open mind and are willing to look at information that conflicts with your understanding - the scientific method requires constant challenging. Clearly its not worth listening to a professor from Brigham Young University, what could he possibly know that you don't? Even if he is a keto zealot - why aren't you interested in learning what scientific evidence leads such a large community of educated people to have come to different conclusions than your? Are you just interested in tribalism where evidence and reason play know role in the debate?
To look at the current state of health in America and the world, and the fairly radical shift in a relatively short period of time, and conclude that 100% of the problem is non-complaint people and that we are certain that the current guidelines/guidance from the health/medical community are totally correct and accurate and clearly not the problem and therefore doesn't need to be continually examined and questioned seems ridiculous to me.
CICO may be a simple enough of a black box to work for many people, but it doesn't work that way in the long run for many others and I continue to believe that we need to open up the black box and figure out whats going on at a deeper level (which I think the hormonal model begins to do).
Here's the thing: It's not that people here are uninterested in learning new things (I've found that the posters here have a wide variety of knowledge when it comes to nutrition and fitness, including educating themselves on the positions they don't necessarily agree with), it's just that it's really common for relatively new users to swing into a conversation and drop a YouTube link (often a lecture about keto, weirdly enough) and then don't engage in the conversation after that. It's impossible for people to watch all the videos and sadly, not everyone who posts them is open to discussion afterwards (I'm sure that isn't the case with you).
If you're interested in discussing the claims, it might be easier to get a response if you make the argument in your own words (and you can also post links for people who are interested in learning more). I think most frequent posters have been burned by people dropping YouTube links and then vanishing (I know I have).21 -
stevencloser wrote: »Anyone want to check that video out? Just from looking up the dude he looks like a keto zealot.
Glad to see you have an open mind and are willing to look at information that conflicts with your understanding - the scientific method requires constant challenging. Clearly its not worth listening to a professor from Brigham Young University, what could he possibly know that you don't? Even if he is a keto zealot - why aren't you interested in learning what scientific evidence leads such a large community of educated people to have come to different conclusions than your? Are you just interested in tribalism where evidence and reason play know role in the debate?
To look at the current state of health in America and the world, and the fairly radical shift in a relatively short period of time, and conclude that 100% of the problem is non-complaint people and that we are certain that the current guidelines/guidance from the health/medical community are totally correct and accurate and clearly not the problem and therefore doesn't need to be continually examined and questioned seems ridiculous to me.
CICO may be a simple enough of a black box to work for many people, but it doesn't work that way in the long run for many others and I continue to believe that we need to open up the black box and figure out whats going on at a deeper level (which I think the hormonal model begins to do).
The first time when encountering a new idea, ideally one attends to it thoughtfully, and checks advocates' and critics' arguments and evidence carefully. The second through maybe 4th or 5th time, one skims to see if there's a new slant on the thesis, or new and more persuasive evidence. By the 10th or 20th, one eye-rolls and refuses to watch the video. It's just human nature.21 -
stevencloser wrote: »Anyone want to check that video out? Just from looking up the dude he looks like a keto zealot.
Glad to see you have an open mind and are willing to look at information that conflicts with your understanding - the scientific method requires constant challenging. Clearly its not worth listening to a professor from Brigham Young University, what could he possibly know that you don't? Even if he is a keto zealot - why aren't you interested in learning what scientific evidence leads such a large community of educated people to have come to different conclusions than your? Are you just interested in tribalism where evidence and reason play know role in the debate?
To look at the current state of health in America and the world, and the fairly radical shift in a relatively short period of time, and conclude that 100% of the problem is non-complaint people and that we are certain that the current guidelines/guidance from the health/medical community are totally correct and accurate and clearly not the problem and therefore doesn't need to be continually examined and questioned seems ridiculous to me.
CICO may be a simple enough of a black box to work for many people, but it doesn't work that way in the long run for many others and I continue to believe that we need to open up the black box and figure out whats going on at a deeper level (which I think the hormonal model begins to do).
The first time when encountering a new idea, ideally one attends to it thoughtfully, and checks advocates' and critics' arguments and evidence carefully. The second through maybe 4th or 5th time, one skims to see if there's a new slant on the thesis, or new and more persuasive evidence. By the 10th or 20th, one eye-rolls and refuses to watch the video. It's just human nature.
Especially when that video is 35 minutes long...8 -
...Clearly its not worth listening to a professor from Brigham Young University, what could he possibly know that you don't?...
The appeal to authority holds no water. Dr. Oz did his undergraduate studies at Harvard and earned his M.D. at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. A prestigious pedigree, but he's still a woo peddler and a fraud.
Obesity is multifactorial, but that in no way negates CICO. Don't conflate human behavioral factors with laws of physics.
If you want to dig deeper into the issues surrounding obesity, start here: http://www.shiftn.com/obesity/Full-Map.html13 -
stevencloser wrote: »A video of Dr. Bikman (professor at BYU) discussing some aspects of a caloric vs. hormonal model of weight losshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t1JN0RgvO4
Anyone want to check that video out? Just from looking up the dude he looks like a keto zealot.
I made it about 15 minutes through. Yes, he is. Funny thing is that he started out OK, but he quickly lost his way and started talking about mouse studies and acute occurrences, ignoring overall/long-term fat/weight management. And he's on the insulin theory. You know, the one that has been thoroughly debunked.15 -
stevencloser wrote: »A video of Dr. Bikman (professor at BYU) discussing some aspects of a caloric vs. hormonal model of weight losshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t1JN0RgvO4
Anyone want to check that video out? Just from looking up the dude he looks like a keto zealot.
I made it about 15 minutes through. Yes, he is. Funny thing is that he started out OK, but he quickly lost his way and started talking about mouse studies and acute occurrences, ignoring overall/long-term fat/weight management. And he's on the insulin theory. You know, the one that has been thoroughly debunked.
Thanks for taking half a one for the team. Er, tribe. :drinker:14 -
annaskiski wrote: »No a blog post is not a comprehensive review of the scientific literature, but the blog cites a scientific study to support its assertion (found here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10049982 )
Some may say that CICO is settled science and some say it is not - there are arguments to be made on both sides and I think its worth people exploring the issues and arguments.
That study has nothing to do with CICO. It only proves what we already knew which is that there are ways of eating that satiate you and there are ways of eating that can potentially create negative satiation. If you eat an unbalanced high GI meal it will cause an insulin spike and since insulin is one of the hunger hormones you will get hungry again and maybe hungrier in a short amount of time.
ETA: Also it was taken out of context for use in that blog. If you take that same high GI food and put it as part of a balanced meal it will not cause the insulin spike and the resulting hunger.
Was about to say the same thing. That study says:
CONCLUSIONS:
The rapid absorption of glucose after consumption of high-GI meals induces a sequence of hormonal and metabolic changes that promote excessive food intake in obese subjects. Additional studies are needed to examine the relationship between dietary GI and long-term body weight regulation.
i.e. certain food can make you hungrier than others. If you give in, you increase your energy intake (CI).
How anyone interprets this as questioning the formula for energy balance is beyond me...
This thread blew up while I was offline for a day and I haven't yet seen if anyone has pointed this out, but that was an n=12 study. It's hardly conclusive in any event.7 -
If you want to dig deeper into the issues surrounding obesity, start here: http://www.shiftn.com/obesity/Full-Map.html
I agree that obesity is multifactorial - and in a cursory review of the map your linked to I think there's a lot that's right. But one question I have is right smack in the middle of the energy balance section is a box labled "Tendency to Preserve Energy". There is no explanation of what that means in the model, but what i think of when i read that is that insulin is acting to store and retain energy as fat. if I want to reduce the tendency to preserve energy to the smallest amount possible, then i need to reduce insulin to the lowest level possible (which in turn means lowering carbs).
If that's not how you understand "the tendency to preserve energy" please explain to me what that means. In your view of the CICO model, what is the mechanism for that tendency and is it something I can alter?
5 -
...Clearly its not worth listening to a professor from Brigham Young University, what could he possibly know that you don't?...
The appeal to authority holds no water. Dr. Oz did his undergraduate studies at Harvard and earned his M.D. at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. A prestigious pedigree, but he's still a woo peddler and a fraud.
Obesity is multifactorial, but that in no way negates CICO. Don't conflate human behavioral factors with laws of physics.
If you want to dig deeper into the issues surrounding obesity, start here: http://www.shiftn.com/obesity/Full-Map.html
Which is even worse than just being ignorant as he probably knows what he says is a lie but would never admit it publicly as he would lose money.11 -
deannalfisher wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Cookies In, Cookies Out works for me. Oh, and Cake.
as long as it doesn't stand for carrots in, carrots out
But, carrot cake...
What is it with you people and cake? Has no one here ever tried pie?!?
Sorry, but that would be PIPO, and we're in the CICO cult. You need to get your physics straight.
At least my cult will never be pronounced 'sicko' or 'pyscho'.
You make a good point. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
And to the other new offshoot to this thread, I'm sorry, but I've been sent down too many You Tube rabbit holes to invest in a 35 minute video. Thank you @TR0berts for the half summary. It will give me more time to have a Coke Zero and a piece of pie tonight.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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