LOL at "cicophants." Great term.
I'm still a total newbie but FWIW, when I switched to keto a few weeks ago, I changed only macros, not calories at all, and lost 8 lbs in 2.5 weeks. I haven't lost anything in the past week (I bounced back up a bit) but we'll see how things go.

It is valid in a lab setting. 100 calories in equals how many calories out? Absorption by the gut varies from person to person. Bariatric surgery is an extreme example. There are many other variables as well.

I think CI<CO is needed for weight loss, but for me I wonder if eating very LCHF raises my CO because weight loss does seem easier in this WOE.

I went from somewhere between 190 and 185 to 155 in about 3.5 months. That's a loss of 30-35lbs which I find really good because 165 is top of the BMI of normal for my height (5'8"). I wasn't that fat, and I wasn't eating at a huge deficit but I was losing at a fast clip.

For most of that time I averaged about 1500 kcal per day. I doubt I was at more than a 500kcal deficit per day, but even if I was at a 1000kcal deficit per day, that should account for 2 lbs of weight lost per week (7000 kcal = 2 lbs) but I was losing 2-3 lbs per week. Somehow I was losing more than expected.

I know eating LCHF lowers my CI, but I think I was measuring and logging my 1500 kcals pretty accurately. LCHF seems to do something very `magical`to my CO. I`m just running with it.

The calories do matter for me as well. Now that I'm closer to goal, I can really tell!
I was losing faster than expected in the beginning also, and of course it's slowed at this point as expected. I am averaging about 100 calories more each day than before and though I do occasionally guess, I also do quite a bit of weighing, particularly the calorie dense stuff.
I wonder also if some people think they eat more now than they did before just because they feel satisfied all day instead of hungry. It's easy to think you aren't eating much when you're hungry all day.
But anyway, I wish people wouldn't say things like that in that way. A person can't help but doubt someone claiming to be eating more than before but losing more weight. Even we have to admit that is debatable.
It can be difficult to exercise restraint in singing the praises of low carb upon achieving success unlike we've ever known before, but in our enthusiasm, I think it's important to make sure we speak carefully so that we don't create uneccessary skepticism with our declarations of keto-induced uphoric fat melting.
People already think we're crazy for not eating cake and cookies, in moderation of course (yeah right!) It's not a far leap to decide we say other crazy stuff too.
At some point, most of us thought cutting carbs this low sounded impossible and crazy... Until we did it. We were open minded enough to give it good solid try and see the difference for ourselves. I will always be grateful that I was open minded about it. So very grateful that I am not one of the people that just dismisses it as a fad or as crazy or unhealthy because of not fully understanding it.
Best thing I have ever done for my health!

I think CICO is valid but I do think our bodies are all different and are more or less efficient at dealing with different macros. Also I found when following the CICO WOE I had to be incredibly strict about weighing and measuring my food but find with LCHF I can eyeball and estimate much more and still lose. I do think this WOE makes you less hungry and more satisfied with what you eat so you eat less naturally. I know now I can go a whole working day on a bulletproof coffee or a single egg scrambled in some butter. In the past I could eat a huge breakfast which included carbs and would be clawing at the walls by 10am for something else to eat. I struggle some days to reach my calorie quota whereas in the past I could go over by lunchtime and still be hungry.

Even if CICO varies from person to person due to differing levels of absorption, metabolism etc., it's still a valid equation.

The problem with strictly using CICO to lose weight is that it doesn't address things like nutrient density, satiety, hormone response.... I like to say that if CICO is the solution, LCHF is the method I use to get there.

I just looked back threw my progress of previous progress and compared them to now. It is my experience that prior diets with CICO I was eating roughly the same calories just different macros back then and loosing only 1 lb a week and I remember quitting those diets because I would get hungry and cravings. Now I'm loosing double that and don't crave anything! And I weigh everything both times so my logging is on point. So my thoughts are yes CICO matter but I feel I can eat more "fats" in calories and loose as much or more!

This is a very interesting long read on the "Calorie is a calorie" debate.
http://www.gnolls.org/3374/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-calorie-to-your-body/

That said. Calories DO matter. Just not in the way some people think, or want to believe, it does. Quality/kind of those calories is important. Activity level, metabolic state, and DNA affects how food is burned and stored. Calories do matter, but they aren't the only thing that does matter.

I have to watch every bite that goes into my mouth 1lb to goal. Count every calorie. But I lose weight on more calories than "they" say I should. This formula will not be the same for another individual, even if they are a tall 36-year-old brunette of partial Sicilian ancestry.

norcogrrl wrote: »

christinev297 wrote: »

Very good points @Sunny_Bunny_

And no, I don't know the meaning of eating cake and cookies in "moderation". This does not come naturally to me at all

Me neither. I won't stop until the bag of cookies is empty, or the cake is gone!

That's me. DH can eat 5 cookies and stop and never touch them again. I'm a Hoover until ALL THE SWEETS are gone. Unless it's a LC dessert, which is loaded with fat, in which case I'm satisfied with one serving and can stop.

baconslave wrote: »

This is a very interesting long read on the "Calorie is a calorie" debate.
http://www.gnolls.org/3374/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-calorie-to-your-body/

That was a very interesting read. Thank you for sharing.

norcogrrl wrote: »

christinev297 wrote: »

Very good points @Sunny_Bunny_

And no, I don't know the meaning of eating cake and cookies in "moderation". This does not come naturally to me at all

Me neither. I won't stop until the bag of cookies is empty, or the cake is gone!

I cannot be trusted, either!

CICO is probably mostly true, but not always. Many years ago when I was maybe 30 pounds over, I was doing a strict measured calory count - that probably was targeting 1 pound a week. All calculated on paper - home computers were still science fiction. The only exercise I was doing was traditional yoga - not the fake high impact stuff that's around today. I found some poses and meditation for weight loss. I was losing over 5lbs a week. Totally impossible by CICO rules.

Also not sustainable once the weight left.

CICO is the shell that governs whether you lose weight. If you consume fewer calories than your body needs over time, you lose weight. Period. But there are multiple layers of complexity within that formula.

But that doesn't mean that every CI is equal - fiber that passes straight through doesn't have a chance to be burned for fuel - and (as noted above) there are some weight loss surgeries that change absorption). And it also doesn't mean that every body burns a calorie (CO) the same way (or even that the same body burns a calorie the same way over time). Metabolisms differ from person to person, or within the same person over time, and in response to disease (thyroid malfunctions, for example). Burning fat at least theoretically is harder than burning carbohydrates - so a calorie of fat may go a little farther than a calorie of carbs on a ketogenic diet. Exercise changes the number of calories you need for energy. That's just a teeny window into the multiple variables embedded in the left or right side of the equation.

Beyond that, there are factors that impact how easy it is to maintain a calorie deficit - lack of complex carbs and the presence of sugars and some fats create cravings for me. For many people, fats create satiation easier than carbs so eating LCHF makes it easier to eat fewer calories (whether you count calories or not).

Mostly, I am finding that I don't really need to count calories on LCHF - because there are so few things that are calorie dense that are permitted that I enjoy. I've been struggling to eat over the "naughty girl" cutoff of 1000 calories without going over protein or carbs (the two things I am limiting). I'm finding it hard to imagine what I will eat when I transition to maintenance.

During a 3 week plateau, my nutritionist who is LCHF positive, warned me as a female to not have less than 1500 cal a day or my body can go into starvation mode. I just cannot eat that amount of cals, so instead I did a fast which kicked me out of the plateau at that time & did again in another plateau. I'm learning about my body & logging everything including the blow outs, weight gains etc I have history to see how it reacts. I do think calories has an effect, but is not near as important as they are made out to be for LCHF.

Good MFP logs calories but only to check when needed & ignore when not needed.

Not mch science to it. I like things to be simple and duplicatable. It was a fat fast you could say - my version, little bit of lean protein in only 1 meal, aimed for only traces of carbs all day (totalled 7g a day) lots and lots of water til I sloshed. Salted anything standing still that I could stomach. Calories were 500 -700 each day mainly via fat. And strict on my supplements.

Only did for 2 days - that was enough, any more and I would have felt I was depriving myself. Then was strict on my normal %s without deviating - now that took discipline!!!!