The Worst Nutrition Advice in History (article)
Replies
-
CICO is not a law of physics.I'm still trying to figure out what law of physics cico applies to....energy? Thermodynamics? If it's thermodynamics, then entropy is a fascinating glitch in the argument.
the human body is not a closed system
Yes, yes, I'm aware. Also believe cico is correct. But I don't think cico is a law of physics as quoted in this thread.
No worries...move on. This is great entertainment.
What I was asking is if a human body contains X amount of calories in lipid/CHO/protein molecules, and then later comes to contain a larger total calorie content of those molecules, without having ingested any, then please explain how this occurs, and do so in a way that does not violate the known laws of physics.
Because this is what whatshername was suggesting happens as a result of someone taking medication:So, when someone takes a medication that causes dramatic weight gain, do you think it causes their metabolism to immediately slow down?
That is NOT what I was suggesting. That is simply how you chose to interpret it -- that is not the only way to interpret what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that there may be other factors than the simple math equation of CICO that can result in weight loss/gain or that our understanding of the TDEE end of the equation is inaccurate or incomplete due to flawed, inaccurate or misunderstood assumptions for said calculation and equation. And, even more extreme, that weight loss and/or gain may not merely be a purely caloric equation as it currently professed in CICO even though the simplicity of CICO is both appealing and comforting.
I believe that's often why you see many people make the disclaimer about medical conditions and abnormalities -- because it isn't nearly so easy to explain those phenomena with the oversimplication of CICO. For example, why you see different weight losses for insulin resistant obese women on different macronutrient diets of the same caloric value/deficit. If it were all about pure calories, then the macronutrient balance wouldn't matter, right? And, yet, it does...so there may be something inherent in the type of calories, the metabolic pathways influenced or used by those nutrients that affects the equation, and yet, isn't readily apparent to us (yet).
Once again, these are the exceptions and not the rule, but that's why most rules have limits on their usefulness.0 -
Interesting; Everything in proper balance.0
-
CICO is not a law of physics.I'm still trying to figure out what law of physics cico applies to....energy? Thermodynamics? If it's thermodynamics, then entropy is a fascinating glitch in the argument.
the human body is not a closed system
Yes, yes, I'm aware. Also believe cico is correct. But I don't think cico is a law of physics as quoted in this thread.
No worries...move on. This is great entertainment.
What I was asking is if a human body contains X amount of calories in lipid/CHO/protein molecules, and then later comes to contain a larger total calorie content of those molecules, without having ingested any, then please explain how this occurs, and do so in a way that does not violate the known laws of physics.
Because this is what whatshername was suggesting happens as a result of someone taking medication:So, when someone takes a medication that causes dramatic weight gain, do you think it causes their metabolism to immediately slow down?
That is NOT what I was suggesting. That is simply how you chose to interpret it -- that is not the only way to interpret what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that there may be other factors than the simple math equation of CICO that can result in weight loss/gain or that our understanding of the TDEE end of the equation is inaccurate or incomplete due to flawed, inaccurate or misunderstood assumptions for said calculation and equation. And, even more extreme, that weight loss and/or gain may not merely be a purely caloric equation as it currently professed in CICO even though the simplicity of CICO is both appealing and comforting.
I believe that's often why you see many people make the disclaimer about medical conditions and abnormalities -- because it isn't nearly so easy to explain those phenomena with the oversimplication of CICO. For example, why you see different weight losses for insulin resistant obese women on different macronutrient diets of the same caloric value/deficit. If it were all about pure calories, then the macronutrient balance wouldn't matter, right? And, yet, it does...so there may be something inherent in the type of calories, the metabolic pathways influenced or used by those nutrients that affects the equation, and yet, isn't readily apparent to us (yet).
Once again, these are the exceptions and not the rule, but that's why most rules have limits on their usefulness.
Different weight losses occur between people on the same caloric deficit, because the intake of calories does not match their individual output. You can't expect everyone's output to be the same. This is why the input part of the equation is important. It doesn't invalidate CICO.
And if you are speaking of one woman who loses weight differently despite having the same caloric input if she messes around with her macros, I don't think any data exists that this happens. In fact I am pretty sure it doesn't. I'd be happy to be proven wrong though.0 -
I'm not sure about that. Yet what I do know is if you eat your ice cream with a fork, half the calories magically fall between the prongs. It's scientifically proven.
No, those are not examples of why "a calorie is NOT a calorie".Here are two examples of why a calorie is NOT a calorie:
Protein: Eating a high protein diet can boost metabolism by 80-100 calories per day and significantly reduce appetite and cravings. Protein calories have a different effect than carb or fat calories (32, 33, 34).
Satiety: Many studies show that different foods have varying effects on feelings of fullness. You need much fewer calories to feel full from eggs or boiled potatoes, compared to donuts or ice cream (35).
There are many more examples of foods and macronutrients having vastly different effects on hunger and hormones.
The myth that calories are all that matters for weight (and health) is completely wrong.
They are examples of how food that has one calorie of energy may affect the 'calories out' portion of calories in vs calories out.
It does not mean that one calorie of that food has two calories of energy.
Most of the times I buy icecream, I ride a return trip of 6-10 miles to the shops on a push bike to get it.
Does that mean that icecream in this situation has a lot less calories because I burn some in the process?
No.0 -
I'm not sure about that. Yet what I do know is if you eat your ice cream with a fork, half the calories magically fall between the prongs. It's scientifically proven.
No, those are not examples of why "a calorie is NOT a calorie".Here are two examples of why a calorie is NOT a calorie:
Protein: Eating a high protein diet can boost metabolism by 80-100 calories per day and significantly reduce appetite and cravings. Protein calories have a different effect than carb or fat calories (32, 33, 34).
Satiety: Many studies show that different foods have varying effects on feelings of fullness. You need much fewer calories to feel full from eggs or boiled potatoes, compared to donuts or ice cream (35).
There are many more examples of foods and macronutrients having vastly different effects on hunger and hormones.
The myth that calories are all that matters for weight (and health) is completely wrong.
They are examples of how food that has one calorie of energy may affect the 'calories out' portion of calories in vs calories out.
It does not mean that one calorie of that food has two calories of energy.
Most of the times I buy icecream, I ride a return trip of 6-10 miles to the shops on a push bike to get it.
Does that mean that icecream in this situation has a lot less calories because I burn some in the process?
No.
Now you've got the right formula: F - FH - CO = CD
Where
F = Food
FH = Food Holes
CO = Calories Out
CD = Caloric Deficit0 -
I'm not sure about that. Yet what I do know is if you eat your ice cream with a fork, half the calories magically fall between the prongs. It's scientifically proven.
No, those are not examples of why "a calorie is NOT a calorie".Here are two examples of why a calorie is NOT a calorie:
Protein: Eating a high protein diet can boost metabolism by 80-100 calories per day and significantly reduce appetite and cravings. Protein calories have a different effect than carb or fat calories (32, 33, 34).
Satiety: Many studies show that different foods have varying effects on feelings of fullness. You need much fewer calories to feel full from eggs or boiled potatoes, compared to donuts or ice cream (35).
There are many more examples of foods and macronutrients having vastly different effects on hunger and hormones.
The myth that calories are all that matters for weight (and health) is completely wrong.
They are examples of how food that has one calorie of energy may affect the 'calories out' portion of calories in vs calories out.
It does not mean that one calorie of that food has two calories of energy.
Most of the times I buy icecream, I ride a return trip of 6-10 miles to the shops on a push bike to get it.
Does that mean that icecream in this situation has a lot less calories because I burn some in the process?
No.
:laugh:0 -
I'm still trying to figure out what law of physics cico applies to....energy? Thermodynamics? If it's thermodynamics, then entropy is a fascinating glitch in the argument.
the human body is not a closed system
This should be the final word - CICO is good enough for the purposes of regulating body weight on a daily basis, but the human body is so much more complex than just adding and subtracting numbers from food labels and HRM calorie burn estimates.0 -
I'm still trying to figure out what law of physics cico applies to....energy? Thermodynamics? If it's thermodynamics, then entropy is a fascinating glitch in the argument.
the human body is not a closed system
This should be the final word - CICO is good enough for the purposes of regulating body weight on a daily basis, but the human body is so much more complex than just adding and subtracting numbers from food labels and HRM calorie burn estimates.
No, it's really not. Watch the scale and adjust CI and CO as necessary. And CICO is not intended to regulate body weight on a DAILY basis, but rather for the long term. Daily body weight regulation doesn't even make sense, as I can weigh myself, go drink some coffee, hop on the scale and I then weigh more. Without having ingested any more than 4 calories. :ohwell:0 -
I don't think the article dissed calorie counting for weight loss. Instead it seemed to me that they pointed out that just meeting a calorie goal did not mean you met nutritional needs.
Agreed.0 -
I'm still trying to figure out what law of physics cico applies to....energy? Thermodynamics? If it's thermodynamics, then entropy is a fascinating glitch in the argument.
the human body is not a closed system
This should be the final word - CICO is good enough for the purposes of regulating body weight on a daily basis, but the human body is so much more complex than just adding and subtracting numbers from food labels and HRM calorie burn estimates.
Should be the final word? Heh.
I agree that for most of us, CICO is good enough. At least for the foreseeable future, CICO gets us about as far as we're going to get in understanding what we're doing.
Where I draw the line is when people here start telling other people that they're wrong, they're not measuring properly, or that they're lying. Those comments are usually followed with "special snowflakes."
I think people should follow CICO. If it's not working, find out why. It could be due to improper measuring or failing to count ALL the food consumed. It could be bad estimates of calorie burns. It could be a physiological problem. It could be any number of things. It's one thing to suggest some of the possible causes. It's something else altogether to tell people that CICO works and therefore they are not doing what they claim to be and to call them special snowflakes.
Note: Some people really do deserve the "special snowflakes" moniker. But the rest of us have no way of knowing who fits that category and who doesn't. It's pretty arrogant to think that you know more about other people on the internet than they know about themselves.0 -
I agree with you totally. I am reading Grain Brain and it says basically the same thing. The body produces cholesterol and is not influenced by the cholesterol that we eat as much as we have been told. He recommends more fats and protein as a way to lose weight and stay healthy. Stay away from ALL grains due to nutrients lost in processing. Eat moderately fruit and steel cut oatmeal.
The big A is caused by following the Government guidelines. The Bible has a list of quality foods that we should be eating. Wishing you the best in His Name.0 -
I'm still trying to figure out what law of physics cico applies to....energy? Thermodynamics? If it's thermodynamics, then entropy is a fascinating glitch in the argument.
the human body is not a closed system
This should be the final word - CICO is good enough for the purposes of regulating body weight on a daily basis, but the human body is so much more complex than just adding and subtracting numbers from food labels and HRM calorie burn estimates.
Should be the final word? Heh.
I agree that for most of us, CICO is good enough. At least for the foreseeable future, CICO gets us about as far as we're going to get in understanding what we're doing.
Where I draw the line is when people here start telling other people that they're wrong, they're not measuring properly, or that they're lying. Those comments are usually followed with "special snowflakes."
I think people should follow CICO. If it's not working, find out why. It could be due to improper measuring or failing to count ALL the food consumed. It could be bad estimates of calorie burns.It could be a physiological problem. It could be any number of things. It's one thing to suggest some of the possible causes. It's something else altogether to tell people that CICO works and therefore they are not doing what they claim to be and to call them special snowflakes.
Note: Some people really do deserve the "special snowflakes" moniker. But the rest of us have no way of knowing who fits that category and who doesn't. It's pretty arrogant to think that you know more about other people on the internet than they know about themselves.
It's not 'any number of things' though. There are many things that can effect either side of the equation, yes. But the equation is still valid. Calories in must be less than calories out in order to lose weight. That is the simple beauty of it. It is so simple, that it confounds many people.0 -
I agree with you totally. I am reading Grain Brain and it says basically the same thing. The body produces cholesterol and is not influenced by the cholesterol that we eat as much as we have been told. He recommends more fats and protein as a way to lose weight and stay healthy. Stay away from ALL grains due to nutrients lost in processing. Eat moderately fruit and steel cut oatmeal.
The big A is caused by following the Government guidelines. The Bible has a list of quality foods that we should be eating. Wishing you the best in His Name.
What is 'The big A'? Also, the Biblical guidelines for food were for the Jewish people living during the times of the Old Testament. They were never meant to be the last word for all people at all times since then.0 -
And here you go again. If someone gains fat it is because they are in a caloric surplus. That's all that CICO says. The rest is stuff you're making up.
CICO is not a law of physics.I'm still trying to figure out what law of physics cico applies to....energy? Thermodynamics? If it's thermodynamics, then entropy is a fascinating glitch in the argument.
the human body is not a closed system
Yes, yes, I'm aware. Also believe cico is correct. But I don't think cico is a law of physics as quoted in this thread.
No worries...move on. This is great entertainment.
What I was asking is if a human body contains X amount of calories in lipid/CHO/protein molecules, and then later comes to contain a larger total calorie content of those molecules, without having ingested any, then please explain how this occurs, and do so in a way that does not violate the known laws of physics.
Because this is what whatshername was suggesting happens as a result of someone taking medication:So, when someone takes a medication that causes dramatic weight gain, do you think it causes their metabolism to immediately slow down?
That is NOT what I was suggesting. That is simply how you chose to interpret it -- that is not the only way to interpret what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that there may be other factors than the simple math equation of CICO that can result in weight loss/gain or that our understanding of the TDEE end of the equation is inaccurate or incomplete due to flawed, inaccurate or misunderstood assumptions for said calculation and equation. And, even more extreme, that weight loss and/or gain may not merely be a purely caloric equation as it currently professed in CICO even though the simplicity of CICO is both appealing and comforting.
There is no other way for one to have gained weight via new fat in their body. Medicines or metabolic problems do not make a person capable of creating free energy, which would be necessary for one to produce new lipid molecules without an energy source.
Medicines and metabolic conditions can change how much energy is extracted or utilized or lost by the body. This is not a surprise to anybody, except maybe you, because you keep bringing it up.
No, you see these disclaimers because people (like you) tend to misinterpret CICO to mean that in and out are constants determined by an online calculator that cannot possibly change.I believe that's often why you see many people make the disclaimer about medical conditions and abnormalities -- because it isn't nearly so easy to explain those phenomena with the oversimplication of CICO.
Yes it matters, because a person's different handling of different macronutrients would change either the "in" or "out" sides of the equation.For example, why you see different weight losses for insulin resistant obese women on different macronutrient diets of the same caloric value/deficit. If it were all about pure calories, then the macronutrient balance wouldn't matter, right?
The version of CICO that you have made up in your own imagination IS wrong. But that doesn't reflect on the veracity of the real CICO model.0 -
http://godhatesshrimp.com/I agree with you totally. I am reading Grain Brain and it says basically the same thing. The body produces cholesterol and is not influenced by the cholesterol that we eat as much as we have been told. He recommends more fats and protein as a way to lose weight and stay healthy. Stay away from ALL grains due to nutrients lost in processing. Eat moderately fruit and steel cut oatmeal.
The big A is caused by following the Government guidelines. The Bible has a list of quality foods that we should be eating. Wishing you the best in His Name.0 -
It's not 'any number of things' though. There are many things that can effect either side of the equation, yes. But the equation is still valid. Calories in must be less than calories out in order to lose weight. That is the simple beauty of it. It is so simple, that it confounds many people.
Yes. It's so simple it obviously confounds you.
CICO is not an equation. An equation would be CI - CO = CD (where CD is Caloric Deficit).
You admit that other things can factor either side of the "equation," yet you fail to see that CICO is incomplete. If other things can affect the equation, those things are factors, and they ought to be factored in to the equation. To ignore them is to have an incomplete equation.
I stand by what I said earlier: We should follow CICO (or CI - CO = CD). IF it doesn't work for some of us, we should try to find out why, because there is some other unaccounted for factor messing up the simple equation.
And the rest of us should not be judging those people having trouble or trying to impose our simpleton ideas on others.0 -
I'm still trying to figure out what law of physics cico applies to....energy? Thermodynamics? If it's thermodynamics, then entropy is a fascinating glitch in the argument.
the human body is not a closed system
This should be the final word - CICO is good enough for the purposes of regulating body weight on a daily basis, but the human body is so much more complex than just adding and subtracting numbers from food labels and HRM calorie burn estimates.
No, it's really not. Watch the scale and adjust CI and CO as necessary. And CICO is not intended to regulate body weight on a DAILY basis, but rather for the long term. Daily body weight regulation doesn't even make sense, as I can weigh myself, go drink some coffee, hop on the scale and I then weigh more. Without having ingested any more than 4 calories. :ohwell:
I look at what I'm doing meal by meal, daily and also weekly. I'm in great shape, at a healthy weight, I eat things that make me happy, and it therefore it makes perfect sense to me. Whether it makes sense to you or not isn't a high priority.0 -
In general a lot of this rings true, except I do value watching calories as part of a good plan just as others have said. Just curious: It's clear that the article says yolks are good and butter is better than margarine, but I don't see any "good" option in the section about oils.
>>>We are commonly advised to consume seed- and vegetable oils that are high in polyunsaturated fats.
>>>These oils, including soybean, corn, canola and cottonseed oils, have been shown in some studies to lower cholesterol levels. (it goes on to say that they can be harmful)
Is there a "good" oil then? If I wanted to buy into this idea what would I cook with?0 -
CICO is not a law of physics.I'm still trying to figure out what law of physics cico applies to....energy? Thermodynamics? If it's thermodynamics, then entropy is a fascinating glitch in the argument.
the human body is not a closed system
Yes, yes, I'm aware. Also believe cico is correct. But I don't think cico is a law of physics as quoted in this thread.
No worries...move on. This is great entertainment.
What I was asking is if a human body contains X amount of calories in lipid/CHO/protein molecules, and then later comes to contain a larger total calorie content of those molecules, without having ingested any, then please explain how this occurs, and do so in a way that does not violate the known laws of physics.
Because this is what whatshername was suggesting happens as a result of someone taking medication:So, when someone takes a medication that causes dramatic weight gain, do you think it causes their metabolism to immediately slow down?
That is NOT what I was suggesting. That is simply how you chose to interpret it -- that is not the only way to interpret what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that there may be other factors than the simple math equation of CICO that can result in weight loss/gain or that our understanding of the TDEE end of the equation is inaccurate or incomplete due to flawed, inaccurate or misunderstood assumptions for said calculation and equation. And, even more extreme, that weight loss and/or gain may not merely be a purely caloric equation as it currently professed in CICO even though the simplicity of CICO is both appealing and comforting.
I believe that's often why you see many people make the disclaimer about medical conditions and abnormalities -- because it isn't nearly so easy to explain those phenomena with the oversimplication of CICO. For example, why you see different weight losses for insulin resistant obese women on different macronutrient diets of the same caloric value/deficit. If it were all about pure calories, then the macronutrient balance wouldn't matter, right? And, yet, it does...so there may be something inherent in the type of calories, the metabolic pathways influenced or used by those nutrients that affects the equation, and yet, isn't readily apparent to us (yet).
Once again, these are the exceptions and not the rule, but that's why most rules have limits on their usefulness.
Different weight losses occur between people on the same caloric deficit, because the intake of calories does not match their individual output. You can't expect everyone's output to be the same. This is why the input part of the equation is important. It doesn't invalidate CICO.
And if you are speaking of one woman who loses weight differently despite having the same caloric input if she messes around with her macros, I don't think any data exists that this happens. In fact I am pretty sure it doesn't. I'd be happy to be proven wrong though.
Check out that study I linked to earlier in the thread. It does an experiment of just that sort and the authors seem unable to figure out the differences in weight loss. They have 2 groups of obese women, one which is insulin resistant and one which is insulin sensitive. They fed the groups two different diets -- one they call high carb (60% carbs, 20% fat, 20% protein) and one they call high fat (40% carbs, 40% fat, 20% protein). All diets were 400 cal deficit. The high carb group in insulin sensitive women lost twice as much body weight as their high fat counterparts. Whereas it was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women -- the high fat group lost twice as much as the high carb group. And they freely admit that they can't figure out the difference in the results and chalk it up to must be differences in NEAT. Granted, they also admit that there are limitations in their study -- not in a metabolic ward, among others -- and that further investigation is needed for why they saw these differences. So, perhaps the study is flawed. But, it's pretty interesting. There are also studies out there showing differences in weight loss and LBM for certain protein macros.0 -
I'm still trying to figure out what law of physics cico applies to....energy? Thermodynamics? If it's thermodynamics, then entropy is a fascinating glitch in the argument.
the human body is not a closed system
This should be the final word - CICO is good enough for the purposes of regulating body weight on a daily basis, but the human body is so much more complex than just adding and subtracting numbers from food labels and HRM calorie burn estimates.
Should be the final word? Heh.
I agree that for most of us, CICO is good enough. At least for the foreseeable future, CICO gets us about as far as we're going to get in understanding what we're doing.
Where I draw the line is when people here start telling other people that they're wrong, they're not measuring properly, or that they're lying. Those comments are usually followed with "special snowflakes."
I think people should follow CICO. If it's not working, find out why. It could be due to improper measuring or failing to count ALL the food consumed. It could be bad estimates of calorie burns. It could be a physiological problem. It could be any number of things. It's one thing to suggest some of the possible causes. It's something else altogether to tell people that CICO works and therefore they are not doing what they claim to be and to call them special snowflakes.
Note: Some people really do deserve the "special snowflakes" moniker. But the rest of us have no way of knowing who fits that category and who doesn't. It's pretty arrogant to think that you know more about other people on the internet than they know about themselves.
Totally agree.0 -
And here you go again. If someone gains fat it is because they are in a caloric surplus. That's all that CICO says. The rest is stuff you're making up.
CICO is not a law of physics.I'm still trying to figure out what law of physics cico applies to....energy? Thermodynamics? If it's thermodynamics, then entropy is a fascinating glitch in the argument.
the human body is not a closed system
Yes, yes, I'm aware. Also believe cico is correct. But I don't think cico is a law of physics as quoted in this thread.
No worries...move on. This is great entertainment.
What I was asking is if a human body contains X amount of calories in lipid/CHO/protein molecules, and then later comes to contain a larger total calorie content of those molecules, without having ingested any, then please explain how this occurs, and do so in a way that does not violate the known laws of physics.
Because this is what whatshername was suggesting happens as a result of someone taking medication:So, when someone takes a medication that causes dramatic weight gain, do you think it causes their metabolism to immediately slow down?
That is NOT what I was suggesting. That is simply how you chose to interpret it -- that is not the only way to interpret what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that there may be other factors than the simple math equation of CICO that can result in weight loss/gain or that our understanding of the TDEE end of the equation is inaccurate or incomplete due to flawed, inaccurate or misunderstood assumptions for said calculation and equation. And, even more extreme, that weight loss and/or gain may not merely be a purely caloric equation as it currently professed in CICO even though the simplicity of CICO is both appealing and comforting.
There is no other way for one to have gained weight via new fat in their body. Medicines or metabolic problems do not make a person capable of creating free energy, which would be necessary for one to produce new lipid molecules without an energy source.
Medicines and metabolic conditions can change how much energy is extracted or utilized or lost by the body. This is not a surprise to anybody, except maybe you, because you keep bringing it up.
No, you see these disclaimers because people (like you) tend to misinterpret CICO to mean that in and out are constants determined by an online calculator that cannot possibly change.I believe that's often why you see many people make the disclaimer about medical conditions and abnormalities -- because it isn't nearly so easy to explain those phenomena with the oversimplication of CICO.
Yes it matters, because a person's different handling of different macronutrients would change either the "in" or "out" sides of the equation.For example, why you see different weight losses for insulin resistant obese women on different macronutrient diets of the same caloric value/deficit. If it were all about pure calories, then the macronutrient balance wouldn't matter, right?
The version of CICO that you have made up in your own imagination IS wrong. But that doesn't reflect on the veracity of the real CICO model.
No, you're missing the point. I'm not asserting that medications or otherwise create free energy. I know you keep trying to make my argument into that assertion so you can argue against it, but that's not what I'm saying AT ALL.
Your argument, on the other hand, is very circular. Well, if you see a weight loss, then you're in a deficit. If you see no weight loss, you're not in a deficit. If you were in a deficit (as evidenced by prior weight loss), start a medication and stop losing or even gain, then the out side of the equation has changed, so CICO is still true. You can just dump everything into the "out" side of the equation and use it as a catchall. Very circular.
What I'm saying is that the equation is more complicated, for good reason. And when you see dramatic weight gains and losses, especially in a short amount of time, I highly doubt that is due to incredible increases or decreases in metabolic burn as metabolic adaptation is something that generally happens slowly (and why that whole starvation mode thing is nonsense). So, if we're still seeing these things in certain circumstances -- like insulin resistance, or certain medications -- then there is another explanation for them -- the biochemical reactions taking place in the body aren't being fully accounted for in such simple math. Either the assumptions upon which CICO is based are flawed or thrown off from certain biochemical reactions or our understanding of it is inaccurate or incomplete. It's really not that complicated.0 -
No, you're missing the point. I'm not asserting that medications or otherwise create free energy. I know you keep trying to make my argument into that assertion so you can argue against it, but that's not what I'm saying AT ALL.
Your argument, on the other hand, is very circular. Well, if you see a weight loss, then you're in a deficit. If you see no weight loss, you're not in a deficit. If you were in a deficit (as evidenced by prior weight loss), start a medication and stop losing or even gain, then the out side of the equation has changed, so CICO is still true. You can just dump everything into the "out" side of the equation and use it as a catchall. Very circular.
What I'm saying is that the equation is more complicated, for good reason. And when you see dramatic weight gains and losses, especially in a short amount of time, I highly doubt that is due to incredible increases or decreases in metabolic burn as metabolic adaptation is something that generally happens slowly (and why that whole starvation mode thing is nonsense). So, if we're still seeing these things in certain circumstances -- like insulin resistance, or certain medications -- then there is another explanation for them -- the biochemical reactions taking place in the body aren't being fully accounted for in such simple math. Either the assumptions upon which CICO is based are flawed or thrown off from certain biochemical reactions or our understanding of it is inaccurate or incomplete. It's really not that complicated.
I still believe in the concept that CICO - certainly long term; however, I can see that short term there could be more to it than that.
It doesn't help though when ambiguous phrases are used such as 'weight gain'
I could be on a sizable calorie deficit and still have a massive weight gain; if for example I consumed loads and loads of water and my body retained it. Weight gain Is not the same as fat gain. I'm pretty sure you will find loads of anecdotal tales of weight gain on a calorie deficit as a result0 -
Wonderrob -- I totally agree. I think CICO is very useful for most people and a good guideline for good reasons. I just don't think it is necessarily a linear, black-and-white thing. There is a reason people suggest a certain rate of weight loss per week (usually 0.25-2 lbs max, except in very obese people). There is a point where greater deficit yields less return, though the reasons aren't quite clear from what I've read.
Some hypothesize that it has to do with stress hormones. That once you get to too large of a deficit, your body reacts by increasing hormones like cortisol and other adrenal hormones, which makes your body less readily release fat. And, that's one of the reasons, that some suggest bumping up calories a little bit to get out of that stress zone and start losing weight again -- though it's totally counterintuitive if you're looking at purely CICO equation. Those that are strict adherents to CICO will say, "no, you're not in a deficit." And, I'm not so sure that's always the answer, and it such thinking can lead into the metabolic damage path.0 -
If something falls onto your head, it's a certainty that before that, it was above your head. It's using basic laws like gravity and the fact that objects in motion tend to stay in motion, and the knowledge that objects don't magically teleport across the universe, to isolate possible scenarios that could have produced what was observed.Your argument, on the other hand, is very circular. Well, if you see a weight loss, then you're in a deficit. If you see no weight loss, you're not in a deficit. If you were in a deficit (as evidenced by prior weight loss), start a medication and stop losing or even gain, then the out side of the equation has changed, so CICO is still true. You can just dump everything into the "out" side of the equation and use it as a catchall. Very circular.
By saying this isn't true, what you're saying is that it's possible to gain energy while on a caloric deficit. That isn't what "deficit" means. So yes it's "circular" because the two things are synonyms.
If someone gains a bunch of fat molecules and their intake did not change, there is only one reasonable explanation for where those lipid molecules came from. Their "out" HAS TO have drastically decreased. It's really not that complicated. If you think it hasn't then again, PLEASE provide an explanation for where this energy has come from.What I'm saying is that the equation is more complicated, for good reason. And when you see dramatic weight gains and losses, especially in a short amount of time, I highly doubt that is due to incredible increases or decreases in metabolic burn as metabolic adaptation is something that generally happens slowly (and why that whole starvation mode thing is nonsense). So, if we're still seeing these things in certain circumstances -- like insulin resistance, or certain medications -- then there is another explanation for them -- the biochemical reactions taking place in the body aren't being fully accounted for in such simple math. Either the assumptions upon which CICO is based are flawed or thrown off from certain biochemical reactions or our understanding of it is inaccurate or incomplete. It's really not that complicated.
What energy you ask? Why, the energy that is stored in the lipid molecules which were not a part of the person's body before all this weight gain. Because, you see, they contain more energy than the other arrangements of their constituent atoms/molecules like CO2 and H2O, and if they weren't prior arranged in such a fashion, the energy to rearrange them into lipid molecules HAS TO have come from somewhere. This process doesn't just randomly happen, it REQUIRES energy in order to happen. And that energy CANNOT simply appear from the aether or be delivered by a leprechaun riding a unicorn. That is indeed a fundamental law known as conservation of mass/energy.
So despite the fact that you keep denying it, by saying that something could cause someone to gain fat without increasing their intake or decreasing their output, you are in fact saying that the energy in those lipid molecules is coming from nowhere.0 -
How can the self-proclaimed smartest person in the universe not know what "deficit" means?Wonderrob -- I totally agree. I think CICO is very useful for most people and a good guideline for good reasons. I just don't think it is necessarily a linear, black-and-white thing. There is a reason people suggest a certain rate of weight loss per week (usually 0.25-2 lbs max, except in very obese people). There is a point where greater deficit yields less return, though the reasons aren't quite clear from what I've read.
Some hypothesize that it has to do with stress hormones. That once you get to too large of a deficit, your body reacts by increasing hormones like cortisol and other adrenal hormones, which makes your body less readily release fat. And, that's one of the reasons, that some suggest bumping up calories a little bit to get out of that stress zone and start losing weight again -- though it's totally counterintuitive if you're looking at purely CICO equation. Those that are strict adherents to CICO will say, "no, you're not in a deficit." And, I'm not so sure that's always the answer, and it such thinking can lead into the metabolic damage path.0 -
How can the self-proclaimed smartest person in the universe not know what "deficit" means?Wonderrob -- I totally agree. I think CICO is very useful for most people and a good guideline for good reasons. I just don't think it is necessarily a linear, black-and-white thing. There is a reason people suggest a certain rate of weight loss per week (usually 0.25-2 lbs max, except in very obese people). There is a point where greater deficit yields less return, though the reasons aren't quite clear from what I've read.
Some hypothesize that it has to do with stress hormones. That once you get to too large of a deficit, your body reacts by increasing hormones like cortisol and other adrenal hormones, which makes your body less readily release fat. And, that's one of the reasons, that some suggest bumping up calories a little bit to get out of that stress zone and start losing weight again -- though it's totally counterintuitive if you're looking at purely CICO equation. Those that are strict adherents to CICO will say, "no, you're not in a deficit." And, I'm not so sure that's always the answer, and it such thinking can lead into the metabolic damage path.
I agree, the paragraph,
"That once you get to too large of a deficit, your body reacts by increasing hormones like cortisol and other adrenal hormones, which makes your body less readily release fat. And, that's one of the reasons, that some suggest bumping up calories a little bit to get out of that stress zone and start losing weight again -- though it's totally counterintuitive if you're looking at purely CICO equation. Those that are strict adherents to CICO will say, "no, you're not in a deficit.""
Makes no sense and defies math. If you are in too large a deficit it means you've gone over a 500 calorie drop, for this example let's say 700 calories. When these "Strict CICO Adherents" you speak on suggest bumping calories it's always by 100-200 calories a day which still leaves you at a 500 calorie deficit.
How is that counter-intuitive? And why would a CICO person say "You aren't in a deficit" when they are still in a deficit? This seems contrived to prove a point but has sort of done just the opposite. =/0 -
In general a lot of this rings true, except I do value watching calories as part of a good plan just as others have said. Just curious: It's clear that the article says yolks are good and butter is better than margarine, but I don't see any "good" option in the section about oils.
>>>We are commonly advised to consume seed- and vegetable oils that are high in polyunsaturated fats.
>>>These oils, including soybean, corn, canola and cottonseed oils, have been shown in some studies to lower cholesterol levels. (it goes on to say that they can be harmful)
Is there a "good" oil then? If I wanted to buy into this idea what would I cook with?
Most people swear by Olive or Coconut Oils.. =D0 -
Sure, you can ignore it if you're one of those special slowflakes who never approach the speed of light.
Sure, just go ahead and ignore the Lorentz contraction, if you are satisfied with an approximation.A calorie is simply a unit of measure – compare it to a mile, another simple unit of measure. Is a mile always a mile? Sure, in a 1 dimensional sense. But is traveling a mile under water the same as traveling a mile through the air? Is running a mile uphill in the snow the same as running a mile on an indoor track? Of course not – the world isn’t just a flat surface on a map, nor are the chemical complexity\ies of different foods just numbers on a label on the side of a food container that can be entirely accounted for using simple math.
But, the miles and miles are close enough that a marathon is the same difference no matter where it's held. There are faster courses and slower courses, but, as far as I know, 95% of the training will be the same.
Lol
" This effect is negligible at everyday speeds, and can be ignored for all regular purposes. Only at greater speeds does it become relevant."
So, basically - if you are a body builder or have a metabolic disorder, you need to pay attention to the details. For the rest of us, calorie = calories is good enough.
One day you will be my friend0 -
It's not 'any number of things' though. There are many things that can effect either side of the equation, yes. But the equation is still valid. Calories in must be less than calories out in order to lose weight. That is the simple beauty of it. It is so simple, that it confounds many people.
Yes. It's so simple it obviously confounds you.
CICO is not an equation. An equation would be CI - CO = CD (where CD is Caloric Deficit).
You admit that other things can factor either side of the "equation," yet you fail to see that CICO is incomplete. If other things can affect the equation, those things are factors, and they ought to be factored in to the equation. To ignore them is to have an incomplete equation.
I stand by what I said earlier: We should follow CICO (or CI - CO = CD). IF it doesn't work for some of us, we should try to find out why, because there is some other unaccounted for factor messing up the simple equation.
And the rest of us should not be judging those people having trouble or trying to impose our simpleton ideas on others.
I have made many posts pointing out that the different sides of the equation (and yes, I know what an equation is, and CICO is an equation, despite my not having implicitly typed out any mathematical symbols) will vary depending on the person. Varying a simple equation does not make it less simple. Figuring out the in and out sides of the simple equation may take some trial and error.0 -
How can the self-proclaimed smartest person in the universe not know what "deficit" means?Wonderrob -- I totally agree. I think CICO is very useful for most people and a good guideline for good reasons. I just don't think it is necessarily a linear, black-and-white thing. There is a reason people suggest a certain rate of weight loss per week (usually 0.25-2 lbs max, except in very obese people). There is a point where greater deficit yields less return, though the reasons aren't quite clear from what I've read.
Some hypothesize that it has to do with stress hormones. That once you get to too large of a deficit, your body reacts by increasing hormones like cortisol and other adrenal hormones, which makes your body less readily release fat. And, that's one of the reasons, that some suggest bumping up calories a little bit to get out of that stress zone and start losing weight again -- though it's totally counterintuitive if you're looking at purely CICO equation. Those that are strict adherents to CICO will say, "no, you're not in a deficit." And, I'm not so sure that's always the answer, and it such thinking can lead into the metabolic damage path.
It's not counterintuitive at all. We aren't machines. We are biological systems with feedback loops. These biological triggers can play with CI or CO in order to maintain homeostasis/health/life.0
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
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions