I never should have ventured off this forum...
Replies
-
Ay! The best nutritionists here and in the unwashed world out there are the ones who, unlike the ADA, never did think one size could fit everyone.
Fortunately, that's the type of thinking that actually predominates (!) in our cool little corner of reality.
3 -
dmariet116 wrote: »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.
This is so good. And it applies to ALL THINGS not just diet! Haha! But it really is a process of trial and error to find what works best or "optimal" for your body. I'm finding my groove after 2 1/2 months
The direction and counsel on this forum is so good. Use it as your start and tweak things along the way.
So true, but it can also be terrifying while you're figuring it all out... When you come from a "diet mentality" background, you're used to someone handing you a "tried and true" specific plan, and then just following that blindly (at least as long as you can until you realize it's not working!!). I'm 12 weeks in (tomorrow) and still having to do major tweaks like eliminating foods I didn't know I was intolerant to, lowering/upping carbs & fat to find my sweet spot, adding in IF, drinking more water, learning how to menu plan without carbs, etc... Many of you are old hands at this who make it all seem so simple and easy, but in reality it's an avalanche of info to digest, sort, and implement. Worth it, but HARD work...6 -
I hear ya! Sounds like you're doing awesome!1
-
-
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Protein cannot be stored by the body without first being converted to glucose
Well, except as muscle through some sort of resistance training.1 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »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.
This is worth 1,000,000 bars of gold-pressed latinum.8 -
Majcolorado wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Protein cannot be stored by the body without first being converted to glucose
Well, except as muscle through some sort of resistance training.
That's not exactly a protein storage method...
You don't just build muscle because you eat extra protein...1 -
I think above all, relax into this way of eating. Sometimes we just overthink things a bit too much. Start somewhere and see how it goes. I will probably always be tweaking something along the way.7
-
@Dragonwolf
That was amazingly informational for me. Thank you.2 -
After two years I am learning even at a faster rate.
I just finished off my 3 pound of MSM crystals. It was a new addition a couple months ago and is seems to lowered my pain a tad but LCHF WOE taking it from 7-8 to 2-3 within the first 30 days after getting off of sugar and all grains two years ago is still the main thing in my case. Tweaking will go on forever in my case. Just learning about liposomal vitamin C for example.
Venturing off is just fine as long as we find our way back. 2 -
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??
True the basic weight loss concept comes down to CICO, but WHAT you eat can affect so many processes in your body.
For example, look at fructose and glucose. Let's say you eat only fruit and sugars. Fructose and glucose are both found in table sugar. They are also both present in HFCS.
The issue with fructose is that unlike glucose, the cells do not immediately use it for energy. In fact, it is absorbed in the small intestine and goes straight to the liver, where it is converted into fat. This is why there is a condition called non-alcoholic fatty liver. It has to do with excess consumption of the sugar fructose.
I was vegan for over 10 years. I was overweight most of that time. Even when my "weight" was under control, my "FAT" wasn't. I had no muscle tone. I was a skinny fat person.
It is possible to lose WEIGHT with CICO but it is not always possible to lose FAT. If that makes sense. 3 -
dmariet116 wrote: »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??
For example, look at fructose and glucose. Let's say you eat only fruit and sugars. Fructose and glucose are both found in table sugar. They are also both present in HFCS.
The issue with fructose is that unlike glucose, the cells do not immediately use it for energy. In fact, it is absorbed in the small intestine and goes straight to the liver, where it is converted into fat. This is why there is a condition called non-alcoholic fatty liver. It has to do with excess consumption of the sugar fructose.
I w
I understand now people talking about CICO 'not being responsible for weight loss' are also discussing the types of calories/foods we are eating.
I've done a certain amount of Metabolic Biochem and Molecular Chemistry and I can elaborate on your explanation. There are number of different sugar types: glucose, fructose, maltose, sucrose, galactose - all of which are ring structures and sometimes found in chains. The number of Glycosidic bonds holding these structures together differs meaning some require more energy to break than others.
I find it interesting you were vegan and struggled with weight gain, I know a moderator on here was a vegetarian who had similar issues. I'm really beginning to believe sugar is a bigger problem than I ever realised.7 -
Yes @dancing_daisy!! Sugar can be a huge problem. Not only metabolizing it but also the addictive factor. You eat it, can't possibly use it all, store it as fat that your body cannot access because of insulin resistance, and then crave more sugar once it is depleted. The cycle starts again. It is not an issue of will power or weakness like so many people attribute obesity to.
You are truly HUNGRY because sugar essentially starves your body of energy and nutrition but feeds your ever growing belly fat reserve.5
This discussion has been closed.