A Question About Sugar
Options
Replies
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
I thought CEO's of software companies would know that….
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106851
Differences in weight achieved through different macro allocations. The "Asian" diet resulted in weight loss while the "Western" diet resulted in weight gain, even though both were delivered at the amount of calories calculated to maintain weight. One of the differences is probably the greater amount of calories from fiber in the Asian diet, according to the study author.
3500 calories = 1 pound only works with fat. Muscle is broken down and built at a different calorie ratio, and requires specific nutrition (how you burn matters, and what you eat matters). 3500 calories = 1 pound does not apply for water or bone mass. CICO works for fat loss/gain, but does not account for all weight changes. It is only one piece of the puzzle
0 -
Sugar does matter - I am shocked at some of comments here.
Please read this: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar/
Fact is - if you eat complex carbohydrates then you will not cause blood sugar spikes to the same degree as eating simple carbohydrates. Eating "sugar" can be a simple as eating something that rates as "high" on the glycemic index (baked potato as an example). If you eat simple carbohydrates, your body will store it as fat very quickly. The storage of fat and excess fat is what is called "inflammation". So eating a simple carb is like eating a packet of sugar - and that will cause your body to store more fat than necessary (or the alternative, eating a complex carb will not store as readily as fat).
I know I can go round and round and whatnot, but I hope this helps. Sugar does matter - it's the type of "sugar" you are eating. Eat complex carbs and avoid refined sugars and any foods that are rated "high" in the glycemic index and you will never have to worry about tracking sugar on this site (or in your life for that matter).0 -
Theortically yes. But the composition of that weight loss will be different.If you read what i wrote on the last page you will understand.
I don't understand and when I suggested two alternative interpretations you didn't help. Let's try again to make it really simple for me :-
Do you believe that the same weight loss will occur from eating the same number of calories irrespective of the composition of those calories ?
a) Yes.
b) No.
So a diet that gets 50% of calories from unsoluble fiber (say, 700 of 1400 calories), would have the same results as one that has no calories coming from fiber?
If the tdee and deficit are the same, regardless of the composition of the diet, the loss will be the same. Its ridiculous to try to use extreme examples because no one eats that ways.
Now if you want to show me a metabolic ward study that can prove me wrong please do. But i do know that different foods have different impacts on composition and TEF.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.01068510 -
Huh? How is appetite not a factor in CICO? As one example, if I were to eat 100% "clean" foods I'd probably be in a caloric deficit, because I would be very full all the time. But I don't eat that way, and as a result I can be in maintenance without feeling stuffed.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Maybe he's referring to the factors that can affect CICO, such as appetite.GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
No sorry. That's not a factor. It's still CICO. That doesn't even make sense.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Huh? How is appetite not a factor in CICO? As one example, if I were to eat 100% "clean" foods I'd probably be in a caloric deficit, because I would be very full all the time. But I don't eat that way, and as a result I can be in maintenance without feeling stuffed.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Maybe he's referring to the factors that can affect CICO, such as appetite.GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
No sorry. That's not a factor. It's still CICO. That doesn't even make sense.
Appetite isn't a factor insomuch as the basics. Eat fewer calories than you expend over time, and you lose weight. Just because you're starving and end up binging on an entire pizza or something like that doesn't magically make those calories more calorie-y.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
I thought CEO's of software companies would know that….
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106851
Differences in weight achieved through different macro allocations. The "Asian" diet resulted in weight loss while the "Western" diet resulted in weight gain, even though both were delivered at the amount of calories calculated to maintain weight. One of the differences is probably the greater amount of calories from fiber in the Asian diet, according to the study author.
3500 calories = 1 pound only works with fat. Muscle is broken down and built at a different calorie ratio, and requires specific nutrition (how you burn matters, and what you eat matters). 3500 calories = 1 pound does not apply for water or bone mass. CICO works for fat loss/gain, but does not account for all weight changes. It is only one piece of the puzzle
WOW you just don't get it do you?
For the millionth time..
calorie deficit = weight loss
macros for body composition …
-2 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Huh? How is appetite not a factor in CICO? As one example, if I were to eat 100% "clean" foods I'd probably be in a caloric deficit, because I would be very full all the time. But I don't eat that way, and as a result I can be in maintenance without feeling stuffed.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Maybe he's referring to the factors that can affect CICO, such as appetite.GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
No sorry. That's not a factor. It's still CICO. That doesn't even make sense.
what the hell does eating clean have to do with appetite?
what is clean eating anyway?
once again, your forecast is wrong.-1 -
Yes. I should have worded it to say appetite is a factor that affects CI, as do other factors.JoanaMHill wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Huh? How is appetite not a factor in CICO? As one example, if I were to eat 100% "clean" foods I'd probably be in a caloric deficit, because I would be very full all the time. But I don't eat that way, and as a result I can be in maintenance without feeling stuffed.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Maybe he's referring to the factors that can affect CICO, such as appetite.GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
No sorry. That's not a factor. It's still CICO. That doesn't even make sense.
Appetite isn't a factor insomuch as the basics. Eat fewer calories than you expend over time, and you lose weight. Just because you're starving and end up binging on an entire pizza or something like that doesn't magically make those calories more calorie-y.
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Sugar does matter - I am shocked at some of comments here.
Please read this: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar/
Fact is - if you eat complex carbohydrates then you will not cause blood sugar spikes to the same degree as eating simple carbohydrates. Eating "sugar" can be a simple as eating something that rates as "high" on the glycemic index (baked potato as an example). If you eat simple carbohydrates, your body will store it as fat very quickly. The storage of fat and excess fat is what is called "inflammation". So eating a simple carb is like eating a packet of sugar - and that will cause your body to store more fat than necessary (or the alternative, eating a complex carb will not store as readily as fat).
I know I can go round and round and whatnot, but I hope this helps. Sugar does matter - it's the type of "sugar" you are eating. Eat complex carbs and avoid refined sugars and any foods that are rated "high" in the glycemic index and you will never have to worry about tracking sugar on this site (or in your life for that matter).
twinkie diet refutes all this.
type of sugar does not matter. At the molecular level all sugar molecules are the same and your body has no way to distinguish between types of sugar.
Also, protein causes insulin spikes so should that be avoided too?0 -
Oh Tappy, Tappy....Are the soda producers not paying you off anymore? Your literature reviews holding fructose innocent of metabolic damage are losing steam...A more recent review by the writer of your literature review:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22795319
"In humans, there is strong evidence, based on several intervention trials, that fructose overfeeding increases fasting and postprandial plasma triglyceride concentrations, which are related to stimulation of hepatic de novo lipogenesis and VLDL-TG secretion, together with decreased VLDL-TG clearance."
" In humans, a short-term fructose overfeeding stimulates de novo lipogenesis and significantly increases intrahepatic fat concentration"
The only defence Tappy can find for fructose is that we have not yet had intense clinical trials long enough (i.e. more than a few weeks) to show that the liver fat caused by fructose will eventually cause non-alcoholic liver disease (but studies to date indicate that is a logical conclusion).
I'm not saying that sugar is the devil. It can be a part of a healthy diet. However, if you are looking for a place to cut calories, losing added sugars can help people get into a deficit without sacrificing nutrition. Also, when not exercising, losing all-over fat while adding on to visceral fat (which fructose over-consumption leads to) will lead to a proportionally larger waistline, with the associated aesthetic and health implications
Side note - exercise targets visceral fat, which is why I don`t understand why everyone insists on saying you don`t need to exercise to lose fat. I mean, yes, you will lose weight, but the aesthetic, morale, and health benefits of exercise are such that I prefer to lose weight by exercise than by calorie tracking - both is just faster. But that`s just what works for me, so I don`t recommend it to anyone else.
Personally, what I find funny about your link is the below. And considering the majority of the recommendations is to find a balanced diet. What's even more ironic even your own link will back what I am saying. I have highlighted the important part.
"However, in contrast to animal models, fructose intakes as high as 200 g/day in humans only modestly decreases hepatic insulin sensitivity, and has no effect on no whole body (muscle) insulin sensitivity. A possible explanation may be that insulin resistance and dysglycemia develop mostly in presence of sustained fructose exposures associated with changes in body composition. Such effects are observed with high daily fructose intakes, and there is no solid evidence that fructose, when consumed in moderate amounts, has deleterious effects."
I would also like to point out that 200g of straight fructose is more than the average person would eat. And that is exactly the issue with all of these studies.. they go so outside the realm of what a typical human would have.
I think Alan Alagon has a good discussion regarding fructose:
"In the single human study I’m aware of that linked fructose to a greater next-day appetite in a subset of the subjects, 30% of total daily energy intake was in the form of free fructose [12]. This amounts to 135 grams, which is the equivalent of 6-7 non-diet soft drinks. Is it really that groundbreaking to think that polishing off a half-dozen soft drinks per day is not a good idea? Demonizing fructose without mentioning the dose-dependent nature of its effects is intellectually dishonest. Like anything else, fructose consumed in gross chronic excess can lead to problems, while moderate amounts are neutral, and in some cases beneficial [13-15]."
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
I think I would explode if I ate 200g of fructose. I don't think she realizes the ridiculous amount of fruit that would be.
I wasn't talking about fructose and insulin, I was talking about the body turning excess sugar into fat at intakes less than 1000g/day (an argument against tigerswords claim.)
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/6/1253S.full
" Fifty-gram preloads of fructose and glucose had a differential effect on buffet test meal intake when administered 2 h before lunch. In these experiments, fructose reduced intake by 500 kcal (2092 kJ) more than did glucose and by 200 kcal (837 kJ) relative to a water preload, suggesting an overall appetite suppressive effect of fructose."
"The gastric emptying of fructose is more rapid and less linear. Emptying does slow with increasing fructose concentration, but the overall rate of delivery of fructose from the stomach to the intestine is almost twice as rapid as with glucose"
Fructose (by itself) does not lead to over eating. Fructose is more satisfying than glucose. The effect of eating glucose and fructose together is that the glucose lowers satisfaction, making over-consumption of fructose easier. Fructose is then digested faster than glucose, and deposited as fat in the liver. In fruit, the low amount of fructose (but higher percentage vrs glucose) plus the fiber (and other helpful micronutrients) help the dieter to be satisfied with less calories. Also, the fiber and low initial amout of sugar (10g total in the apple I looked up, 6 from fructose - I don't know where the author of your opinion piece got his totals but they are off) mean that the energy is more likely to be digested at the same rate it is needed, so less is stored, as compared to a 41g sugar (23 g fructose) can of pop.
200 g of fructose is a ridiculous amount of fruit. The 135 g that would be almost 6 cans of pop a day referenced in your article actually happens out there. I know at least two people who drank that much. One stopped drinking pop and lost 30 pounds, without exercise or logging calories.
What I find interesting about your article, is it recommends a maximum of 50 grams of sugar a day (except for athletes), about the MFP recommendation that everyone is telling OP to ignore. Happy New Year
If excess fructose gets converted into fat on a 1000 calorie diet and the person burns 2000 calories per day, what reserves will the body pull the energy it needs from?
The people you know that cut the 6 cans of soda a day and lost weight lost it because the elimination of soda reduced the caloric intake overall not because it was fructose. That would be almost 800 calories. An 800 calorie reduction of any combination of macronutrients would result in weight loss.
The fructose gets turned into fat that is stored in the liver. If the person burns the 2000 calories from BMR - no exercise calories, then the fat that is burned (1000 calories/day) is taken from all over the body. The dieter could end up with extra fat in the liver, while losing all-over fat (not all the newly-stored fat gets burned). Increased organ fat can lead to a variety of health issues.
My point is, that if someone needs to cut calories in thier diet, reducing added sugars is a way to do it without sacrificing essential nutrients (as they would if they stopped eating whole fruits.), and may eventually lead to fewer cravings, resulting in better dietary adherence.0 -
In this context, I was referring to all foods that are very nutrient-dense, with no low-nutrient dense foods. My appetite would be very different if I only ate foods such as apples, broccoli, chicken, spinach, fish vs adding foods such as cookies, chips, etc. to that.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Huh? How is appetite not a factor in CICO? As one example, if I were to eat 100% "clean" foods I'd probably be in a caloric deficit, because I would be very full all the time. But I don't eat that way, and as a result I can be in maintenance without feeling stuffed.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Maybe he's referring to the factors that can affect CICO, such as appetite.GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
No sorry. That's not a factor. It's still CICO. That doesn't even make sense.
what the hell does eating clean have to do with appetite?
what is clean eating anyway?
once again, your forecast is wrong.
I think you misinterpreted what I posted.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
In this context, I was referring to all foods that are very nutrient-dense, with no low-nutrient dense foods. My appetite would be very different if I only ate foods such as apples, broccoli, chicken, spinach, fish vs adding foods such as cookies, chips, etc. to that.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Huh? How is appetite not a factor in CICO? As one example, if I were to eat 100% "clean" foods I'd probably be in a caloric deficit, because I would be very full all the time. But I don't eat that way, and as a result I can be in maintenance without feeling stuffed.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Maybe he's referring to the factors that can affect CICO, such as appetite.GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
No sorry. That's not a factor. It's still CICO. That doesn't even make sense.
what the hell does eating clean have to do with appetite?
what is clean eating anyway?
once again, your forecast is wrong.
I think you misinterpreted what I posted.
no, what you posted is hogwash.
typical.
-1 -
Explain. Because I thought this is the whole reason why you don't recommend people eat nothing but chicken breast, broccoli, brown rice, and the like when bulking.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In this context, I was referring to all foods that are very nutrient-dense, with no low-nutrient dense foods. My appetite would be very different if I only ate foods such as apples, broccoli, chicken, spinach, fish vs adding foods such as cookies, chips, etc. to that.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Huh? How is appetite not a factor in CICO? As one example, if I were to eat 100% "clean" foods I'd probably be in a caloric deficit, because I would be very full all the time. But I don't eat that way, and as a result I can be in maintenance without feeling stuffed.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Maybe he's referring to the factors that can affect CICO, such as appetite.GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
No sorry. That's not a factor. It's still CICO. That doesn't even make sense.
what the hell does eating clean have to do with appetite?
what is clean eating anyway?
once again, your forecast is wrong.
I think you misinterpreted what I posted.
no, what you posted is hogwash.
typical.
0 -
Theortically yes. But the composition of that weight loss will be different.If you read what i wrote on the last page you will understand.
I don't understand and when I suggested two alternative interpretations you didn't help. Let's try again to make it really simple for me :-
Do you believe that the same weight loss will occur from eating the same number of calories irrespective of the composition of those calories ?
a) Yes.
b) No.
So a diet that gets 50% of calories from unsoluble fiber (say, 700 of 1400 calories), would have the same results as one that has no calories coming from fiber?
If the tdee and deficit are the same, regardless of the composition of the diet, the loss will be the same. Its ridiculous to try to use extreme examples because no one eats that ways.
Now if you want to show me a metabolic ward study that can prove me wrong please do. But i do know that different foods have different impacts on composition and TEF.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106851
the study itself says "the sample size is too small to generalize to a larger population" so throw that one out.
0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »But what would the studies be implying exactly? That some calories contain more calories than others?
That the different foods had a different effect on the hormones, biochemistry etc and consequently resulted in different outcomes. To take one random example a 40% carbohydrate meal results in a large post-prandial increase in glucagon whereas a 64% carbohydrate meal with the same energy value results in a decrease in glucagon for some hours. These two situations may not have the same outcome in energy terms.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10578211 showed different REE values on two diets, so the same calories in would not give the same calorie deficit, and so on.
Higher protein requires more energy to digest it, so a higher proportion of that in the food means a higher energy expenditure and hence potentially more weight loss for a given energy input.
An energy balance always applies, but a human isn't a heat exchanger so the variable "energy in" is but part of the story.
But it's still CICO. I'm not seeing how this principle is being challenged just because the "calories out" part of the equation, assuming for sake of argument, increased to some degree for subjects on a HP diet.
If the folks doing the high carb diet compensated for the bonus burn of the HP group by jumping rope or decreasing their Calorie intake to attain the same deficit, wouldn't the outcome be the same then? Or if the HP group compensated for their bonus burn by consuming more calories (which seems to be the BIG SELL of HP diets anyway) to maintain the deficit at the outset then would not the outcome be the same?
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Explain. Because I thought this is the whole reason why you don't recommend people eat nothing but chicken breast, broccoli, brown rice, and the like when bulking.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In this context, I was referring to all foods that are very nutrient-dense, with no low-nutrient dense foods. My appetite would be very different if I only ate foods such as apples, broccoli, chicken, spinach, fish vs adding foods such as cookies, chips, etc. to that.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Huh? How is appetite not a factor in CICO? As one example, if I were to eat 100% "clean" foods I'd probably be in a caloric deficit, because I would be very full all the time. But I don't eat that way, and as a result I can be in maintenance without feeling stuffed.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Maybe he's referring to the factors that can affect CICO, such as appetite.GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
No sorry. That's not a factor. It's still CICO. That doesn't even make sense.
what the hell does eating clean have to do with appetite?
what is clean eating anyway?
once again, your forecast is wrong.
I think you misinterpreted what I posted.
no, what you posted is hogwash.
typical.
because one will find it almost impossible to reach 3000 calories on broccoli, chicken, and rice because they are not calorie dense…
that has nothing to do with an individuals appetite.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions