I believe the learning curve is just HUGE because there is no one size fits all diet. People tend to be very adamant re their way of eating once they find what works for them. I have found most of the FB pages are geared accordingly, kind of like most of the main forum here on MFP who say that only CICO matter.

That's why so many find their way here to this group. People all have their own opinions and share them freely here to HELP you on your way...not so much to persuade you that their way is the only way.

I follow many FB pages but only as a learning tool. I love the differing points of view. It can be confusing though

Bearing in mind that 95% of us here, well, do not exactly suffer from attention-surplus disorder, and not intending to preach to the keto-choir, I would urge all new arrivals to:

1. Spend several hours each week going through the collected lessons in the sticky LCD Launch Pad, a phenomenal resource our mods, especially @baconslave, have spent hundreds of hours compiling to help newcomers get their feet under them. (It screams "START Here!" for good reason!)

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10103966/start-here-the-lcd-launch-pad

2. Invest in one of the basic LC guidebooks written by genuine LC experts, read it (obviously), and keep it close by for reference.

My short list, FYI:

*Phinney & Volek, Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living

* Phinney, Volek, and Westman, A New Atkins for a New You (simplified version of the one above)

* Richard K. Bernstein, Dr. Bernstein’s Diabetes Solution

RalfLott wrote: »

Bearing in mind that 95% of us here, well, do not exactly suffer from attention-surplus disorder, and not intending to preach to the keto-choir, I would urge all new arrivals to:

1. Spend several hours each week going through the collected lessons in the sticky LCD Launch Pad, a phenomenal resource our mods, especially @baconslave, have spent hundreds of hours compiling to help newcomers get their feet under them. (It screams "Start Here" for good reason!)
[/i]

So true! We seriously have the best Mods ever! Our launchpad is full of amazing resources with supporting science.

Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »

RalfLott wrote: »

Bearing in mind that 95% of us here, well, do not exactly suffer from attention-surplus disorder, and not intending to preach to the keto-choir, I would urge all new arrivals to:

1. Spend several hours each week going through the collected lessons in the sticky LCD Launch Pad, a phenomenal resource our mods, especially @baconslave, have spent hundreds of hours compiling to help newcomers get their feet under them. (It screams "Start Here" for good reason!)
[/i]

So true! We seriously have the best Mods ever! Our launchpad is full of amazing resources with supporting science.

We probably need a Mod Appreciation Day!

Yea, Mods!

dancing_daisy wrote: »

dmariet116 wrote: »

kind of like most of the main forum here on MFP who say that only CICO matter.

A genuine question asked in a friendly way: what other mechanism can cause weight loss? I see people who don't believe in CICO quite often but to me its logic. I can't think of any other system of anatomy that would cause weight loss??

It's not that the idea that "eat less than you burn and you'll lose weight" isn't technically true, it's that it's a gross oversimplification of reality.

The first problem is that calorie counts of foods are determined using a bomb calorimeter, which essentially combusts the item and measures how much the water temperature raises. Since a calorie is a measure of how much heat it takes to raise a certain amount of water 1 degree Celsius, this is a consistent way to measure the amount of (combustible) energy in a food item.

But here's the problem -- we don't combust our food. We dismantle it. We convert it around to different substrates. We use those substrates for various purposes. We convert the raw energy pieces to bioelectricity. We store other pieces as various forms of stored energy. We use yet other pieces to create hormones or build cells.

The difference between what a bomb calorimeter does and what our bodies do is roughly akin to the difference between what a fireplace does and what a nuclear reactor does. And the problem is that we're trying to determine the energy output of the nuclear reactor by measuring that of the fireplace.

In other words, without even getting into the fact that the calorimeter only measures heat, and energy from a combustion reaction takes on more forms than just heat (ie - light, particles, etc), we've already demonstrated how the fundamental differences have rendered the known caloric amounts of food not particularly accurate. To make matters worse, the labels can be off by something like 20%.

Then, we have the matter of the accuracy of the "calories out" half of the equation. Calculators can't even begin to account for all the variables that go into that part of the equation. What's your average body temperature? If you're a woman, where are you in your monthly cycle? What is your cortisol level? How much do you fidget? All these things factor into your "calories out" half of the equation, and can account for several hundred calories.

Then we have the matter of hormones and hormonal balance to deal with. Hyperinsulinemia, thyroid issues, elevated cortisol. These things can send the wrong signals around, resulting in weight gain where there shouldn't be. The really fun part is that it's not that the body isn't using the energy (the metabolism hasn't necessarily slowed down), but rather, the body is sending the wrong signals around, telling itself to store the energy even while other parts are screaming that they're starving.

On top of that, different foods are processed differently and send different hormonal signals. 100 calories of protein is going to be handled differently than 100 calories of glucose or 100 calories of lard. Of that 100 calories of protein, the most that can be stored as energy in some form is about 75, and if it's to be stored as fat, you're looking at about 60 calories of that original 100 (it has to be converted to sugar, then to fat, both of which have a roughly 75% efficiency rate). Odds are good, though, that the bulk of that 100 calories of protein will be stored or used as amino acids for maintenance and building of lean mass. Likewise, 100 calories of glucose is going to skyrocket insulin output, while 100 calories of lard will not.

So, why do we use the methods we do for measuring calories? Because it was "good enough" to put into widespread use. The difference isn't quite as much as the fireplace and nuclear reactor, so "close" is "close enough," generally speaking. But notice the abysmal rates of weight management in general, even among the highly motivated. Notice what it takes for many people to lose and maintain their weight. Notice how dependent people are on weighing and measuring and tracking when fighting against their body, just to maintain their weight.

Now, consider this -- the idea of calories is a very new concept. Even the measurement of a calorie as a unit of heat did not exist until around 1800. The 1850s saw the first usage of calories as a way of measuring human metabolism (interestingly, the original usage qualifies the metabolism of the subject with "depending on prior diet"). The 1870s was when we first started seeing calories as they relate to food and weight management. (http://jn.nutrition.org/content/136/12/2957.full)

What did we do before that? When food was readily available, we generally watched what we ate. You can see this in older shows, where a character wanting to drop a couple of pounds would skip the bread, potatoes, or sugary dessert, and would opt for just the meat and non-starchy vegetables. The focus was on the quality of the food, instead of just the quantity, because quantity generally took care of itself (stop eating when you get full).

Look at our focus now -- calories, calories, calories. Nutrition be damned, pretty much. You can eat whatever you want, as long as you don't go over your calories. Never mind that your hunger cues are jacked from all the insulin you're pumping around your body, and that the food you're eating is nutritionally bankrupt. You just need more willpower to keep yourself from eating more. If you fail, it's a personal failing on your part, not a biological issue. Not losing weight? Eat less and move more. You say you're only eating 1000 calories and you bike 10 miles a day? You're not losing weight, so you must be lying.