Advice on Deconstructing Calories In vs. Calories Out?
CharlieLopez2005
Posts: 114
I'm helping a group at work do a Biggest Loser challenge, in part by writing a 1-2 page weekly newsletter. In my next issue (next Friday), I'm starting to deconstruct the Calories In vs. Calorie Out (CICO) model for weight loss, and was wondering what kinds of aspects I may be missing. Here's some ideas I have so far, would appreciate any feedback (including criticisms I could encounter)--keeping in mind that my audience at work aren't all low-carbers.
1.) CICO is based on rough analogy of human metabolism to a bomb calorimeter. A bomb calorimeter measures how much energy (measured in terms of calories) it takes to literally burn a food item to ashes. In this context, a gram of fat requires about 9 calories to burn; a gram of protein and carbohydrate each require about 4 calories to burn. However, it is well known that certain components of food, like fiber, cholesterol, the Nitrogen in protein, and some vitamins among others, aren't completely digested by the human body. So instead of a pound (453.5 grams in a pound) of fat requiring 4,081.5 calories (453.5 * 9) to burn, we're told it takes 3,500, which fits conveniently with our 7-day weeks. It's largely assumed that human metabolism is slightly less efficient than a bomb calorimeter in a physics lab. Source: Marion Nestle's "What to Eat" (not a pro-low-carb book/author). From here, the analogies break down even further.
2.) CICO assumes that both the "Calories In" and "Calories Out" parts of the equation are independent variables to one another, ignoring a biological process called homeostasis--our evolutionary tendency to maintain resource levels. Part of why the "Eat Less, Exercise More" idea doesn't always work long-term is that vigorous exercise tends to increase hunger--if you've ever "worked up an appetite," you'll know what I mean. Also, when you progressively restrict food intake long-term, your body adapts by slowing down your metabolism, increasing appetite, and decreasing energy levels--our body's hardwired preservation response to times of famine. Unfortunately, it's like our genes do not understand that we have food available 24/7. Source: Gary Taubes is a good one here, in particular his more readable "Why We Get Fat."
3.) Perhaps most importantly, CICO greatly minimizes the importance and complexity of what a food is actually composed of and how our body's biochemistry interacts with it. CICO is the nutritional equivalent of "judging a book by its cover." For example, in terms of sating one's appetite, protein followed by saturated fat are more effective than non-fiber carbohydrates. Sugar, starch, and even artificial sweeteners and MSG can actually increase one's appetite.
Any advice or constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!
1.) CICO is based on rough analogy of human metabolism to a bomb calorimeter. A bomb calorimeter measures how much energy (measured in terms of calories) it takes to literally burn a food item to ashes. In this context, a gram of fat requires about 9 calories to burn; a gram of protein and carbohydrate each require about 4 calories to burn. However, it is well known that certain components of food, like fiber, cholesterol, the Nitrogen in protein, and some vitamins among others, aren't completely digested by the human body. So instead of a pound (453.5 grams in a pound) of fat requiring 4,081.5 calories (453.5 * 9) to burn, we're told it takes 3,500, which fits conveniently with our 7-day weeks. It's largely assumed that human metabolism is slightly less efficient than a bomb calorimeter in a physics lab. Source: Marion Nestle's "What to Eat" (not a pro-low-carb book/author). From here, the analogies break down even further.
2.) CICO assumes that both the "Calories In" and "Calories Out" parts of the equation are independent variables to one another, ignoring a biological process called homeostasis--our evolutionary tendency to maintain resource levels. Part of why the "Eat Less, Exercise More" idea doesn't always work long-term is that vigorous exercise tends to increase hunger--if you've ever "worked up an appetite," you'll know what I mean. Also, when you progressively restrict food intake long-term, your body adapts by slowing down your metabolism, increasing appetite, and decreasing energy levels--our body's hardwired preservation response to times of famine. Unfortunately, it's like our genes do not understand that we have food available 24/7. Source: Gary Taubes is a good one here, in particular his more readable "Why We Get Fat."
3.) Perhaps most importantly, CICO greatly minimizes the importance and complexity of what a food is actually composed of and how our body's biochemistry interacts with it. CICO is the nutritional equivalent of "judging a book by its cover." For example, in terms of sating one's appetite, protein followed by saturated fat are more effective than non-fiber carbohydrates. Sugar, starch, and even artificial sweeteners and MSG can actually increase one's appetite.
Any advice or constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!
0
Replies
-
Hi! I think what you've written gives several nice analogies and explanations about how our body uses fuel. I do have a question, though. Does anyone know why artificial sweeteners (and does this include Truvia, Stevia, etc?) increase our appetite? I'm a scientist, so OK with fairly technical explanations or references; )0
-
I would look up Gary taubes who has web site that will lead you to an answer. I will send you a link to some great information.1
-
Fung says some artificial sweetness spike insulin. If that is so, then it could drive blood sugar lower or make blood sugar have a higher negative rate which could drive hunger. I would think those would be the causes or it impacts hunger hormones. Just guessing.0
-
Not all macros are digested with the same efficiency. What we eat matters. As far as physics go, you MUST have losses at least as great as the deficits(can't create energy out of nothing). Due to digestive inefficiencies, you CAN have losses greater than the deficits.0
-
"Calories" is not a language the body understands.
The body is a biochemical factory. It runs on nutrients which it translates (anabolic and catabolic) into OTHER nutrients it needs to function.
CICO isn't wrong in saying energy surplus matters for lipolysis. High energy intake above the individual's ability to produce and use ATP...will eventually lead to fat gain...no matter the macros. BUT CICO uses the wrong arguments to defend it's theory. As you pointed out, the required energy to heating and burning a carrot can't possibly reflect the CHEMICAL impact the same carrot has when eaten...raw, boiled, roasted, pulverized.
The CICO theory assumes that metabolism is a simple mechanical process, where in reality the body is high tech facility performing numerous background tasks without us even knowing it. To put it in perspective, we still haven't been able to make artificial liver or kidneys. This tells us that there's much more to the body than reducing it down to a mechanical simplistic thing.
From my understanding, the liver, the mitochondria and the gut microbiome are possibly the most important factors working together or against your lifestyle choices like diet, exercise and sleep for fat maintenance. For example bad quality sleep reduce fat loss and increases cravings and irritability. Double negative whammy.
Edit: I'll add that often the very same people who argue vs. that a big part of fat loss is about the right hormonal pathways...somehow when we talk about anabolism and testosterone...then suddenly there's a belief that unfavorable hormones are to blame. So where do they think testosterone comes from in the first place? From "calories"?
Edit2: Yes there are outliers who due to many factors can thrive on a high carb intake. Without being TOFIs. But to my knowledge, they're a minority, roughly 20-30 % of gen pop. The rest of us fall into a sliding scale from quite carb sensitive to highly carb intolerant.1 -
It will be an interesting and worthy discussion however the original post is from 2012.
Cool thing is, in 2 days of 2017, it has already gotten more responses than the 2 from 2012. Our currently active board is a good thing. Carry on.1 -
Fung says some artificial sweetness spike insulin. If that is so, then it could drive blood sugar lower or make blood sugar have a higher negative rate which could drive hunger. I would think those would be the causes or it impacts hunger hormones. Just guessing.
According to an animated fellow in a YouTube video from the Cleveland Clinic, it may be that the activation of sweetness detectors stimulates glucagon production by alpha-cells in the pancreas, which would increase blood glucose and trigger an immediate (or, in diabetics, delayed) production of insulin in nearby beta-cells.
I must have been dozing, though, because I don't remember why Xylitol, erythritol & stevia, though sweet, are relatively benign...
0 -
I haven't found a diffence, BG-wise, between sweet n low and stevia. Neither caused spikes or dips.0
-
LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »I haven't found a diffence, BG-wise, between sweet n low and stevia. Neither caused spikes or dips.
If i partake of them excessively I get some stomach upset on certain ones, but I've never seen a blood sugar spike of any kind. 15m-3h... and that was one of the first things I took the time to test after getting a meter.
Also, say what you will... CICO works at a macro level, but ... when you're diabetic, when you have trouble not snacking or bingeing, it may not be the best solution for you as a weight management strategy. Will power and ability to 'stick to the program' makes a huge difference... and keto eliminates a lot of the hunger issues that cause many people to not be able to stick with the program.
If you want to lose weight with keto you still need to input less calories than you output (it's just far easier to do that when you're satiated most of the time vs feeling starved.)2 -
LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »I haven't found a diffence, BG-wise, between sweet n low and stevia. Neither caused spikes or dips.
If i partake of them excessively I get some stomach upset on certain ones, but I've never seen a blood sugar spike of any kind. 15m-3h... and that was one of the first things I took the time to test after getting a meter.
Any real surprises in your self - experimenting?0 -
LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »I haven't found a diffence, BG-wise, between sweet n low and stevia. Neither caused spikes or dips.
If i partake of them excessively I get some stomach upset on certain ones, but I've never seen a blood sugar spike of any kind. 15m-3h... and that was one of the first things I took the time to test after getting a meter.
Any real surprises in your self - experimenting?
Not with artificial sweeteners, yet at least... other than the taste of saccharin (Sweet 'n low) makes me wanna puke. I also didn't really experiment with the 'sugar alcohols' much either, just the commonly available sugar replacements (wanted one that had little or no impact on bg levels and ended up with splenda because in my opinion it tastes the best.)
I've also considered redoing the test with 'fairly massive' doses of the sweeteners (think 1/4th cup dissolved in 8oz water) just to see if increasing dosage makes any impacts more evident, I suspect it may, some of them do have a couple calories per "serving" (even when its not listed) which implies something your body can digest for energy.
When my morning numbers were out of line high someone pointed me to dawn phenomenon which turned out to be at least a solution and explanation for what was happening, eat a bit of pb or cheese before bed and it doesn't happen anymore (87 today fasting w/1k metformin.)
Other than those and next thing I think i'm going to test is BG after eating every 15m for however long it takes BG to return to a baseline number on a given quantity of carbs, then protein, and then fat (the fat one won't be much fun since gotta get as close to a pure source as possible.)
Becoming diabetic has been a real education on how my body specifically reacts to things.2 -
Just a question, since I am new to this blood glucose testing biz.... If you eat something just before bed, how do you actually get an FBG reading if you haven't fasted for 12 hours before taking this reading the next morning?1
-
0
-
-
If you think it appropriate it might be worth stating that not all diets work for everyone. I'd like to see more people be tolerant of different eating styles an how they may be effective for different people. No diet will work unless you make lifestyle changes that can be permanent. Very restricted calorie intake is difficult if no impossible to maintain.
thus the need to find an eating style you can live with. If you can exist on celery and salad, good for you but the question is - how long can you do it?0 -
SueMizzou52 wrote: »If you think it appropriate it might be worth stating that not all diets work for everyone. I'd like to see more people be tolerant of different eating styles an how they may be effective for different people. No diet will work unless you make lifestyle changes that can be permanent. Very restricted calorie intake is difficult if no impossible to maintain.
thus the need to find an eating style you can live with. If you can exist on celery and salad, good for you but the question is - how long can you do it?
Highly restricted calorie intakes aren't meant to be maintained indefinitely. They are a way to quickly undo adipose accumulation that occurred on a much longer timeline.
Using myself as an example: I rapid cut using a PSMF approach, while using a mild surplus for bulking purposes. This allows me to spend 3-6 months in a primarily anabolic state, then strip away the fat accumulated in that time period in about two weeks.0 -
What is PSMF?0
-
canadjineh wrote: »Just a question, since I am new to this blood glucose testing biz.... If you eat something just before bed, how do you actually get an FBG reading if you haven't fasted for 12 hours before taking this reading the next morning?
3-4 hours of fasting is good enough for me, as my BG is usually back to "normal" within 2-3 hours.
(Well, you might ask, since almost no one goes 12 hours without eating, WTH is up with your one annual screening blood test requiring a 12-hour fast?
) 1 -
canadjineh wrote: »Just a question, since I am new to this blood glucose testing biz.... If you eat something just before bed, how do you actually get an FBG reading if you haven't fasted for 12 hours before taking this reading the next morning?
I have started just calling it my morning BG reading because it is not always 12 hours without food.
I should call it the "lets see how my liver is messing with me today" BG reading.
2 -
What is PSMF?
Protein sparing modified fast. Essentially I run a VLCD that provides enough protein to prevent the need for lean mass cannibalism (1.75-2g/lbs lbm), enough efas from fish oil to allow for epa/dha cell saturation, and nothing else. In my current shape, it comes out to be around 260g protein and 10g efas per day, or 1130 kcals/day as a 5'10" 169 lbs. male at 13% bodyfat,1 -
Thanks0
-
canadjineh wrote: »Just a question, since I am new to this blood glucose testing biz.... If you eat something just before bed, how do you actually get an FBG reading if you haven't fasted for 12 hours before taking this reading the next morning?
I have started just calling it my morning BG reading because it is not always 12 hours without food.
I should call it the "lets see how my liver is messing with me today" BG reading.
Right?0 -
I'm not sure that everyone sees a rise in BG or has trouble with artificial sweeteners, my body (so far) handles Stevia, Splenda & equal without creating cravings.
Not often but occasionally I'll enjoy a diet soda.
These artificial sweeteners make life bearable for so many and going back many years the diabetics in my family only had & used "sweet n low".
Have read in different threads that others tolerate & use some sweeteners without negative affects. Before going LcHf my sweetener of choice was "sugar in the raw".......transitioned to Stevia etc about 16 months ago, no weight gain or other issues.
Glad this thread has gained momentum, am getting good info and thanks for the links.0 -
I have often seen this advice about eating something with fat and protein before bed to address the dawn phenomenon. My mother, who is a T2D, will do so at times when she is having high morning readings. I've always wondered though, what impact, if any, eating before bed has on overnight sugar levels vs. the benefit of a lower morning level? For example, might the protein in the snack increase blood sugar levels for a period of time overnight, thus, negating all or some of the benefits of a lower morning reading?1
-
I have often seen this advice about eating something with fat and protein before bed to address the dawn phenomenon. My mother, who is a T2D, will do so at times when she is having high morning readings. I've always wondered though, what impact, if any, eating before bed has on overnight sugar levels vs. the benefit of a lower morning level? For example, might the protein in the snack increase blood sugar levels for a period of time overnight, thus, negating all or some of the benefits of a lower morning reading?
For me, and I think I might not be the norm, food in the evening tends to raise my morning BG. Not always but often. It doesn't bring it up a lot but if I have carbs, like nuts, it is usually up in the mornig.2 -
Eating late not only appears to raise my morning BG but also has the effect of shortening fasting time.
So... I'll have a glass of wine or LC cocktail, (which is about all I can handle as a dirt cheap keto drunk
these days anyhow). 1 -
canadjineh wrote: »Just a question, since I am new to this blood glucose testing biz.... If you eat something just before bed, how do you actually get an FBG reading if you haven't fasted for 12 hours before taking this reading the next morning?
3-4 hours of fasting is good enough for me, as my BG is usually back to "normal" within 2-3 hours.
(Well, you might ask, since almost no one goes 12 hours without eating, WTH is up with your one annual screening blood test requiring a 12-hour fast?)
Now I'm really confused... I IF, and always fast for at least 12 hours, more like 16 including my sleep period (I won't call it overnight because it's 5:30 am - 12:30 or 1pm). My post meal numbers seem very good and BG drops quickly and easily after food, it's just that my FBG seems high. I don't think that's a good thing, but I'm not sure.... Is there a problem if the other daytime numbers are good? Would there likely be a difference if one's daily schedule is not the norm ie. since I take my FBG in the mid afternoon would normal circadian rhythms change the expected numbers? My FBG is always higher than my 1 hr postprandial, nevermind the 2 & 3 hr tests.
I've never actually officially had a FBG test done at a lab, just playing around with the BG monitor I got.0 -
I know I have read or heard it said in a talk somewhere that very low carbers/keto'ers often have their highest BG reading be their FBG. I think it is not unusual. I know mine is always the highest reading of the day. It bothers me largely because that is partially how diabetes or prediabetes is diagnosed. I am still very firmly prediabetic according to that number, and it annoys me after being LCHF for a couple of years.
I guess I feel like I should be rewarded with low morning BG numbers.
0
This discussion has been closed.