The Worst Nutrition Advice in History (article)

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.

CICO is not a law of physics.

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.

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.

CICO is not a law of physics.

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.

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.

No, those are not examples of why "a calorie is NOT a calorie".
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.

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.

Now you've got the right formula: F - FH - CO = CD

Where
F = Food
FH = Food Holes
CO = Calories Out
CD = Caloric Deficit

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://godhatesshrimp.com/

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.

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.

CICO is not a law of physics.

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.