Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Does calories in vs calories out really matter?
Options
Replies
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »In other words, my original point is that carbs cause a spike in BG (and a fast and quick insulin response to the BG spike) and protein creates a much slower and smaller rise in BG (and a much slower and smaller insulin response to the small and slow BG rise). The effect of carbs on insulin and BG is very different than the effect of protein on insulin and BG.
At this point, I can't tell if there is disagreement about that point or if it just isn't understood. I acknowledge that I don't often articulate my knowledge very well; but I've tried to say the same thing several different ways and instead of better understanding each time, I get the impression that people become more confused. When I see responses that make my point and yet are intended to debate the same point, I feel like what I'm saying just isn't understood. I'm not exactly a teacher, and I don't know how I can be more clear. So I'm just going to leave it at that unless you can give some additional feedback to help me to better explain this to you.
Well it depends what you are trying to defend. You are applying a transient interaction based on a rebutal that only discussed insulin. So in a literal sense, i would disagree that insulin doesnt provide as high of a response (total volume) as many carbs. The insulin index would support what i am saying. But when you discuss other factors, its can complicate things... no difference then what happens when you don't at in isolation.
Even so, the application of this information is low. Not many people have type I diabetes and have to worry about the factors you do and we dont eat in isolation. In this context, composition of meals is what is important.
I will say i have found this interesting but in terms of the OP I don't find much application.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »In other words, my original point is that carbs cause a spike in BG (and a fast and quick insulin response to the BG spike) and protein creates a much slower and smaller rise in BG (and a much slower and smaller insulin response to the small and slow BG rise). The effect of carbs on insulin and BG is very different than the effect of protein on insulin and BG.
At this point, I can't tell if there is disagreement about that point or if it just isn't understood. I acknowledge that I don't often articulate my knowledge very well; but I've tried to say the same thing several different ways and instead of better understanding each time, I get the impression that people become more confused. When I see responses that make my point and yet are intended to debate the same point, I feel like what I'm saying just isn't understood. I'm not exactly a teacher, and I don't know how I can be more clear. So I'm just going to leave it at that unless you can give some additional feedback to help me to better explain this to you.
Well it depends what you are trying to defend. You are applying a transient interaction based on a rebutal that only discussed insulin. So in a literal sense, i would disagree that insulin doesnt provide as high of a response (total volume) as many carbs. The insulin index would support what i am saying. But when you discuss other factors, its can complicate things... no difference then what happens when you don't at in isolation.
Even so, the application of this information is low. Not many people have type I diabetes and have to worry about the factors you do and we dont eat in isolation. In this context, composition of meals is what is important.
I will say i have found this interesting but in terms of the OP I don't find much application.
There may be application to OP if something there leads to an explanation of why I started losing so much more quickly when, without changing calories, I changed macros to low carb. My rate of loss almost tripled at the same calorie level.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »In other words, my original point is that carbs cause a spike in BG (and a fast and quick insulin response to the BG spike) and protein creates a much slower and smaller rise in BG (and a much slower and smaller insulin response to the small and slow BG rise). The effect of carbs on insulin and BG is very different than the effect of protein on insulin and BG.
At this point, I can't tell if there is disagreement about that point or if it just isn't understood. I acknowledge that I don't often articulate my knowledge very well; but I've tried to say the same thing several different ways and instead of better understanding each time, I get the impression that people become more confused. When I see responses that make my point and yet are intended to debate the same point, I feel like what I'm saying just isn't understood. I'm not exactly a teacher, and I don't know how I can be more clear. So I'm just going to leave it at that unless you can give some additional feedback to help me to better explain this to you.
Well it depends what you are trying to defend. You are applying a transient interaction based on a rebutal that only discussed insulin. So in a literal sense, i would disagree that insulin doesnt provide as high of a response (total volume) as many carbs. The insulin index would support what i am saying. But when you discuss other factors, its can complicate things... no difference then what happens when you don't at in isolation.
Even so, the application of this information is low. Not many people have type I diabetes and have to worry about the factors you do and we dont eat in isolation. In this context, composition of meals is what is important.
I will say i have found this interesting but in terms of the OP I don't find much application.
There may be application to OP if something there leads to an explanation of why I started losing so much more quickly when, without changing calories, I changed macros to low carb. My rate of loss almost tripled at the same calorie level.
It would only matter if the OP has type I diabetes like you.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »What kind of question is this? That's like asking if it's really that important to know how to operate a car to get your drivers license. It's the ONLY thing that matters. Eat too much, you're not losing a dang thing.
There are plenty of people who do not believe in CICO, including many doctors like Dr. Fung.
Yep, here is his take on cico:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
I'm seriously asking this question. How can Fung claim that he's not advocating restricting calories when he advocates fasting?
Am I missing something? It's like he's working a shell game con with them.
That is exactly what is happening. I lost a bunch of weight losing on low carb. But I only ate 2 meals a day and didn't eat after 7 PM. I was taking in maybe 1500 calories (while working out a few hours a day). But I believed it was totatlly the carbs.
When I would go 'off plan' I would eat everything in site till I felt sick to my stomach. God knows how many calories I was eating but it was totes the carbs that were evil.
6 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »In other words, my original point is that carbs cause a spike in BG (and a fast and quick insulin response to the BG spike) and protein creates a much slower and smaller rise in BG (and a much slower and smaller insulin response to the small and slow BG rise). The effect of carbs on insulin and BG is very different than the effect of protein on insulin and BG.
At this point, I can't tell if there is disagreement about that point or if it just isn't understood. I acknowledge that I don't often articulate my knowledge very well; but I've tried to say the same thing several different ways and instead of better understanding each time, I get the impression that people become more confused. When I see responses that make my point and yet are intended to debate the same point, I feel like what I'm saying just isn't understood. I'm not exactly a teacher, and I don't know how I can be more clear. So I'm just going to leave it at that unless you can give some additional feedback to help me to better explain this to you.
Well it depends what you are trying to defend. You are applying a transient interaction based on a rebutal that only discussed insulin. So in a literal sense, i would disagree that insulin doesnt provide as high of a response (total volume) as many carbs. The insulin index would support what i am saying. But when you discuss other factors, its can complicate things... no difference then what happens when you don't at in isolation.
Even so, the application of this information is low. Not many people have type I diabetes and have to worry about the factors you do and we dont eat in isolation. In this context, composition of meals is what is important.
I will say i have found this interesting but in terms of the OP I don't find much application.
There may be application to OP if something there leads to an explanation of why I started losing so much more quickly when, without changing calories, I changed macros to low carb. My rate of loss almost tripled at the same calorie level.
It would only matter if the OP has type I diabetes like you.
Not necessarily. Having type 1 diabetes only matters if the reason why CICO didn't work is actually affected by having type 1 diabetes. We don't know that it is. Insulin is calculated and delivered manually for type 1's, but I'm not seeing a difference on BG responses or anything else.
The implication that a type 1 diabetic functions totally and completely differently, as though we are some alien being that shares no physical traits with humans is getting a bit old. Believe it or not, we do have most things in common. The few things that are different are actually quite well understood (at least by some of us).1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »In other words, my original point is that carbs cause a spike in BG (and a fast and quick insulin response to the BG spike) and protein creates a much slower and smaller rise in BG (and a much slower and smaller insulin response to the small and slow BG rise). The effect of carbs on insulin and BG is very different than the effect of protein on insulin and BG.
At this point, I can't tell if there is disagreement about that point or if it just isn't understood. I acknowledge that I don't often articulate my knowledge very well; but I've tried to say the same thing several different ways and instead of better understanding each time, I get the impression that people become more confused. When I see responses that make my point and yet are intended to debate the same point, I feel like what I'm saying just isn't understood. I'm not exactly a teacher, and I don't know how I can be more clear. So I'm just going to leave it at that unless you can give some additional feedback to help me to better explain this to you.
Well it depends what you are trying to defend. You are applying a transient interaction based on a rebutal that only discussed insulin. So in a literal sense, i would disagree that insulin doesnt provide as high of a response (total volume) as many carbs. The insulin index would support what i am saying. But when you discuss other factors, its can complicate things... no difference then what happens when you don't at in isolation.
Even so, the application of this information is low. Not many people have type I diabetes and have to worry about the factors you do and we dont eat in isolation. In this context, composition of meals is what is important.
I will say i have found this interesting but in terms of the OP I don't find much application.
There may be application to OP if something there leads to an explanation of why I started losing so much more quickly when, without changing calories, I changed macros to low carb. My rate of loss almost tripled at the same calorie level.
It would only matter if the OP has type I diabetes like you.
Not necessarily. Having type 1 diabetes only matters if the reason why CICO didn't work is actually affected by having type 1 diabetes. We don't know that it is. Insulin is calculated and delivered manually for type 1's, but I'm not seeing a difference on BG responses or anything else.
The implication that a type 1 diabetic functions totally and completely differently, as though we are some alien being that shares no physical traits with humans is getting a bit old. Believe it or not, we do have most things in common. The few things that are different are actually quite well understood (at least by some of us).
Never suggested that you are some kind of alien. That is something that you are suggesting yourself. What I am saying, is that you have other variables and your variables can affect the energy balance equation.. no differently than those with IR/PCOS have been shown to have lower metabolism when it relates to carbohydrates. Unfortunately, I do not have the background or knowledge of type1 to have a good discussion on energy metabolism as it relates to type 1.
On the contrary, my wife has postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome... a relatively newly acknowledge condition which only affects ~ 1 million people. It mainly affects young girls from 18 to 25, but in about 20% of these cases, they last in adulthood. And then even within that, there is a wide range of effects and symptoms. Universally, the only thing that is consistent in terms of diet is a significant increase in sodium is required (~10,000 mg per day) but anecdotally, about 50% of the patients suffer adverse reactions to either lactose and/or gluten according to the mayo clinic. When my wife has a diet high in carbs and even gets near gluten, she gets overly lethargic which causes a decrease in EE. Whats even worse, since your HR is naturally around 100 bpm and suffers from low blood volume, her body is forced to work harder to maintain homeostasis which causes lethargy naturally. So many of these variables affect EE. What I am getting at, is that dietary changes can influence EE. For my wife, a low carb/no gluten/high sodium diet helps keep EE up. If she doesn't do that, EE goes down.
Another example of issues with those with malabsorpton issues. One of the girls on this board had this issue and couldn't even gain at 2500 calories while sedentary. So even though she was eating 2500 calories, her body didn't have the ability to convert the food to energy, which messes with things a bit.2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »In other words, my original point is that carbs cause a spike in BG (and a fast and quick insulin response to the BG spike) and protein creates a much slower and smaller rise in BG (and a much slower and smaller insulin response to the small and slow BG rise). The effect of carbs on insulin and BG is very different than the effect of protein on insulin and BG.
At this point, I can't tell if there is disagreement about that point or if it just isn't understood. I acknowledge that I don't often articulate my knowledge very well; but I've tried to say the same thing several different ways and instead of better understanding each time, I get the impression that people become more confused. When I see responses that make my point and yet are intended to debate the same point, I feel like what I'm saying just isn't understood. I'm not exactly a teacher, and I don't know how I can be more clear. So I'm just going to leave it at that unless you can give some additional feedback to help me to better explain this to you.
Well it depends what you are trying to defend. You are applying a transient interaction based on a rebutal that only discussed insulin. So in a literal sense, i would disagree that insulin doesnt provide as high of a response (total volume) as many carbs. The insulin index would support what i am saying. But when you discuss other factors, its can complicate things... no difference then what happens when you don't at in isolation.
Even so, the application of this information is low. Not many people have type I diabetes and have to worry about the factors you do and we dont eat in isolation. In this context, composition of meals is what is important.
I will say i have found this interesting but in terms of the OP I don't find much application.
There may be application to OP if something there leads to an explanation of why I started losing so much more quickly when, without changing calories, I changed macros to low carb. My rate of loss almost tripled at the same calorie level.
It would only matter if the OP has type I diabetes like you.
Not necessarily. Having type 1 diabetes only matters if the reason why CICO didn't work is actually affected by having type 1 diabetes. We don't know that it is. Insulin is calculated and delivered manually for type 1's, but I'm not seeing a difference on BG responses or anything else.
The implication that a type 1 diabetic functions totally and completely differently, as though we are some alien being that shares no physical traits with humans is getting a bit old. Believe it or not, we do have most things in common. The few things that are different are actually quite well understood (at least by some of us).
Never suggested that you are some kind of alien. That is something that you are suggesting yourself. What I am saying, is that you have other variables and your variables can affect the energy balance equation.. no differently than those with IR/PCOS have been shown to have lower metabolism when it relates to carbohydrates. Unfortunately, I do not have the background or knowledge of type1 to have a good discussion on energy metabolism as it relates to type 1.
On the contrary, my wife has postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome... a relatively newly acknowledge condition which only affects ~ 1 million people. It mainly affects young girls from 18 to 25, but in about 20% of these cases, they last in adulthood. And then even within that, there is a wide range of effects and symptoms. Universally, the only thing that is consistent in terms of diet is a significant increase in sodium is required (~10,000 mg per day) but anecdotally, about 50% of the patients suffer adverse reactions to either lactose and/or gluten according to the mayo clinic. When my wife has a diet high in carbs and even gets near gluten, she gets overly lethargic which causes a decrease in EE. Whats even worse, since your HR is naturally around 100 bpm and suffers from low blood volume, her body is forced to work harder to maintain homeostasis which causes lethargy naturally. So many of these variables affect EE. What I am getting at, is that dietary changes can influence EE. For my wife, a low carb/no gluten/high sodium diet helps keep EE up. If she doesn't do that, EE goes down.
Another example of issues with those with malabsorpton issues. One of the girls on this board had this issue and couldn't even gain at 2500 calories while sedentary. So even though she was eating 2500 calories, her body didn't have the ability to convert the food to energy, which messes with things a bit.
I'm not saying you actually said I'm some kind of alien. It's just the implication that I'm so very different that nothing I know or experience could possibly apply to someone who is not a type 1. To what extent and when carbs and protein convert to glucose can certainly be relevant to others. If eating low carb results in faster weight loss at the same calorie level, and the understanding of the differences between carb and protein conversion can help explain that difference, then why can't that understanding apply to those without type 1 diabetes? Obviously we aren't there yet, but it is just as likely that the explanation will apply to others as that it won't.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »In other words, my original point is that carbs cause a spike in BG (and a fast and quick insulin response to the BG spike) and protein creates a much slower and smaller rise in BG (and a much slower and smaller insulin response to the small and slow BG rise). The effect of carbs on insulin and BG is very different than the effect of protein on insulin and BG.
At this point, I can't tell if there is disagreement about that point or if it just isn't understood. I acknowledge that I don't often articulate my knowledge very well; but I've tried to say the same thing several different ways and instead of better understanding each time, I get the impression that people become more confused. When I see responses that make my point and yet are intended to debate the same point, I feel like what I'm saying just isn't understood. I'm not exactly a teacher, and I don't know how I can be more clear. So I'm just going to leave it at that unless you can give some additional feedback to help me to better explain this to you.
Well it depends what you are trying to defend. You are applying a transient interaction based on a rebutal that only discussed insulin. So in a literal sense, i would disagree that insulin doesnt provide as high of a response (total volume) as many carbs. The insulin index would support what i am saying. But when you discuss other factors, its can complicate things... no difference then what happens when you don't at in isolation.
Even so, the application of this information is low. Not many people have type I diabetes and have to worry about the factors you do and we dont eat in isolation. In this context, composition of meals is what is important.
I will say i have found this interesting but in terms of the OP I don't find much application.
There may be application to OP if something there leads to an explanation of why I started losing so much more quickly when, without changing calories, I changed macros to low carb. My rate of loss almost tripled at the same calorie level.
It would only matter if the OP has type I diabetes like you.
Not necessarily. Having type 1 diabetes only matters if the reason why CICO didn't work is actually affected by having type 1 diabetes. We don't know that it is. Insulin is calculated and delivered manually for type 1's, but I'm not seeing a difference on BG responses or anything else.
The implication that a type 1 diabetic functions totally and completely differently, as though we are some alien being that shares no physical traits with humans is getting a bit old. Believe it or not, we do have most things in common. The few things that are different are actually quite well understood (at least by some of us).
Never suggested that you are some kind of alien. That is something that you are suggesting yourself. What I am saying, is that you have other variables and your variables can affect the energy balance equation.. no differently than those with IR/PCOS have been shown to have lower metabolism when it relates to carbohydrates. Unfortunately, I do not have the background or knowledge of type1 to have a good discussion on energy metabolism as it relates to type 1.
On the contrary, my wife has postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome... a relatively newly acknowledge condition which only affects ~ 1 million people. It mainly affects young girls from 18 to 25, but in about 20% of these cases, they last in adulthood. And then even within that, there is a wide range of effects and symptoms. Universally, the only thing that is consistent in terms of diet is a significant increase in sodium is required (~10,000 mg per day) but anecdotally, about 50% of the patients suffer adverse reactions to either lactose and/or gluten according to the mayo clinic. When my wife has a diet high in carbs and even gets near gluten, she gets overly lethargic which causes a decrease in EE. Whats even worse, since your HR is naturally around 100 bpm and suffers from low blood volume, her body is forced to work harder to maintain homeostasis which causes lethargy naturally. So many of these variables affect EE. What I am getting at, is that dietary changes can influence EE. For my wife, a low carb/no gluten/high sodium diet helps keep EE up. If she doesn't do that, EE goes down.
Another example of issues with those with malabsorpton issues. One of the girls on this board had this issue and couldn't even gain at 2500 calories while sedentary. So even though she was eating 2500 calories, her body didn't have the ability to convert the food to energy, which messes with things a bit.
I'm not saying you actually said I'm some kind of alien. It's just the implication that I'm so very different that nothing I know or experience could possibly apply to someone who is not a type 1. To what extent and when carbs and protein convert to glucose can certainly be relevant to others. If eating low carb results in faster weight loss at the same calorie level, and the understanding of the differences between carb and protein conversion can help explain that difference, then why can't that understanding apply to those without type 1 diabetes? Obviously we aren't there yet, but it is just as likely that the explanation will apply to others as that it won't.
I get your frustration. I get the same type of feedback when I discuss gluten and POTS. And the scientific community just isn't there year either with her condition. But pending the only variable you changed was carbs (held protein steady), than it would assume that carbs has an effect on EE similar to those with PCOS/IR. But outside of dietary compliance, that concept won't apply to others, like it my wife's issues don't apply to the general population. I eat gluten and I am fine. My wife eats its and she can barely get out of bed.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »The type of food does not matter for weight loss itself. If it did, I would not be close to 100lbs lost. Pms can be a hell of a time with chocolate and cheese puffs.
Before anyone else jumps on the "UNHEALTHY! INFLAMMATION!!" bandwagon, my blood panels are optimal and I aced my physical.
Weight loss is all about calories. If it is not working for you, you need to reevaluate where you're going wrong:
Calories in:- Are you logging everything you ingest including the oils and condiments used for cooking. Some spice blends have calories. Are you logging all drinks that aren't diet soda or water? Logging milk? Are you being honest?
- Are you using the correct database entries? Do you check them against your food packaging?
- Are you using generic entries? They can be notoriously off. Same goes for green checkmark items. Don't trust those
- Are you weighing ALL your food? That includes pre-packaged items (which can be off by around 20%). Eggs in a carton don't weigh the same. Some bread slices can differ. Pre packaged and pre weighed items should be weighed for total accuracy. Protein bars can be higher or lower in weight than the package states. Protein powder can as well.
- Are you logging cheat meals/cheat days. Some cheat meals/days can actually wipe out a weekly deficit.
- Are you adding your own recipes to the recipe builder or just choosing a generic entry? Generic entries were created by someone else and possibly have different amount of ingredients in them. Use your own.
Calories out:- How are you figuring your exercise calories? MFP database calories are quite inflated, as are those from exercise machines. Aim to eat back ⅓ to ½ of those exercise calories back to keep your deficit. I even eat ½ of my fitbit recorded exercise calories back as I have the HR model (it picks up my anxiety due to elevated heart rate).
stevencloser wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »bercyn1291 wrote: »It is agreed upon that quality of the food matters in faster weight loss but ideally calories out-calories in should determine how much weight you lose. Please share your experience.
Calories in vs. calories out are ALL that matters for weight loss.
Quality of food matters for health.
Faster weight loss is usually unhealthy weight loss. Obese people can lose quickly, but the rest of us risk lean muscle mass. When our bodies don't have fuel.....they will catobolize existing lean muscle. High quality food does not make us immune.
Not immune, but you can eat in ways in crash diets that severely limit LBM loss. I think a lot of the "zomg I lost muscle" stuff comes from people thinking that they are less fat than they actually are. I have yet to see before and after DEXAs of anyone who went on a short term crash, that suffered from notable catabolism in the process. Sure, if they drag it out over months, things can get pretty bad.
There is a proposed maximum rate of fat loss per day based on amount of fat there is on a body as the fat cells can apparently only release their content so fast, so going above and beyond that for your rate of loss would necessarily involve muscle.
@stevencloser may you point me to some information on this, please? I am very interested in researching this further. Thank you.
SingingSingleTracker wrote: »It's all right HERE.
YES!!!!! Absolutely THIS!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615
This is where it comes from.
Hypophagia = fancy term for undereating.
Ah, thought so! Thanks a bunch @stevencloser I had come across this not too long ago.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »In other words, my original point is that carbs cause a spike in BG (and a fast and quick insulin response to the BG spike) and protein creates a much slower and smaller rise in BG (and a much slower and smaller insulin response to the small and slow BG rise). The effect of carbs on insulin and BG is very different than the effect of protein on insulin and BG.
At this point, I can't tell if there is disagreement about that point or if it just isn't understood. I acknowledge that I don't often articulate my knowledge very well; but I've tried to say the same thing several different ways and instead of better understanding each time, I get the impression that people become more confused. When I see responses that make my point and yet are intended to debate the same point, I feel like what I'm saying just isn't understood. I'm not exactly a teacher, and I don't know how I can be more clear. So I'm just going to leave it at that unless you can give some additional feedback to help me to better explain this to you.
Well it depends what you are trying to defend. You are applying a transient interaction based on a rebutal that only discussed insulin. So in a literal sense, i would disagree that insulin doesnt provide as high of a response (total volume) as many carbs. The insulin index would support what i am saying. But when you discuss other factors, its can complicate things... no difference then what happens when you don't at in isolation.
Even so, the application of this information is low. Not many people have type I diabetes and have to worry about the factors you do and we dont eat in isolation. In this context, composition of meals is what is important.
I will say i have found this interesting but in terms of the OP I don't find much application.
There may be application to OP if something there leads to an explanation of why I started losing so much more quickly when, without changing calories, I changed macros to low carb. My rate of loss almost tripled at the same calorie level.
It would only matter if the OP has type I diabetes like you.
Not necessarily. Having type 1 diabetes only matters if the reason why CICO didn't work is actually affected by having type 1 diabetes. We don't know that it is. Insulin is calculated and delivered manually for type 1's, but I'm not seeing a difference on BG responses or anything else.
The implication that a type 1 diabetic functions totally and completely differently, as though we are some alien being that shares no physical traits with humans is getting a bit old. Believe it or not, we do have most things in common. The few things that are different are actually quite well understood (at least by some of us).
Never suggested that you are some kind of alien. That is something that you are suggesting yourself. What I am saying, is that you have other variables and your variables can affect the energy balance equation.. no differently than those with IR/PCOS have been shown to have lower metabolism when it relates to carbohydrates. Unfortunately, I do not have the background or knowledge of type1 to have a good discussion on energy metabolism as it relates to type 1.
On the contrary, my wife has postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome... a relatively newly acknowledge condition which only affects ~ 1 million people. It mainly affects young girls from 18 to 25, but in about 20% of these cases, they last in adulthood. And then even within that, there is a wide range of effects and symptoms. Universally, the only thing that is consistent in terms of diet is a significant increase in sodium is required (~10,000 mg per day) but anecdotally, about 50% of the patients suffer adverse reactions to either lactose and/or gluten according to the mayo clinic. When my wife has a diet high in carbs and even gets near gluten, she gets overly lethargic which causes a decrease in EE. Whats even worse, since your HR is naturally around 100 bpm and suffers from low blood volume, her body is forced to work harder to maintain homeostasis which causes lethargy naturally. So many of these variables affect EE. What I am getting at, is that dietary changes can influence EE. For my wife, a low carb/no gluten/high sodium diet helps keep EE up. If she doesn't do that, EE goes down.
Another example of issues with those with malabsorpton issues. One of the girls on this board had this issue and couldn't even gain at 2500 calories while sedentary. So even though she was eating 2500 calories, her body didn't have the ability to convert the food to energy, which messes with things a bit.
I'm not saying you actually said I'm some kind of alien. It's just the implication that I'm so very different that nothing I know or experience could possibly apply to someone who is not a type 1. To what extent and when carbs and protein convert to glucose can certainly be relevant to others. If eating low carb results in faster weight loss at the same calorie level, and the understanding of the differences between carb and protein conversion can help explain that difference, then why can't that understanding apply to those without type 1 diabetes? Obviously we aren't there yet, but it is just as likely that the explanation will apply to others as that it won't.
I get your frustration. I get the same type of feedback when I discuss gluten and POTS. And the scientific community just isn't there year either with her condition. But pending the only variable you changed was carbs (held protein steady), than it would assume that carbs has an effect on EE similar to those with PCOS/IR. But outside of dietary compliance, that concept won't apply to others, like it my wife's issues don't apply to the general population. I eat gluten and I am fine. My wife eats its and she can barely get out of bed.
The difference for me is that high carb consumption causes higher BG's, even if for a short period of time. That still happens when insulin is both calculated and timed properly to be most effective. High BG's cause osmotic diuresis... some glucose is going to be expelled through urine. So high carb foods for someone like me will lead to increased CO (because I would literally pee out calories) compared with the same calories of other macros that don't give the same spikes. So what we actually know says a higher carb diet would be more likely to cause someone like me to lose weight than for non-type 1's. My experience is the opposite.0 -
Raptor2763 wrote: »Without getting scientific, let's keep this simple. Weight loss is mostly - though not entirely - determined by diet. And the only way to lose weight is to make sure you're running a calorie deficit. That said, we're really talking about WHAT, WHEN, and HOW MUCH you eat. If you're working out, make sure you're not eating you're not eating your exercise calories and keep that deficit in mind.
Dude, no matter how many threads you jump into to say this, it still isn't true. What and when you eat don't matter for weight loss. Only how much you eat matters.
Also, eating back exercise calories is fine so long as you don't overestimate them. Not eating them back just creates a bigger deficit. Eating them back doesn't negate the deficit you already established.8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »What kind of question is this? That's like asking if it's really that important to know how to operate a car to get your drivers license. It's the ONLY thing that matters. Eat too much, you're not losing a dang thing.
There are plenty of people who do not believe in CICO, including many doctors like Dr. Fung.
Yep, here is his take on cico:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
I'm seriously asking this question. How can Fung claim that he's not advocating restricting calories when he advocates fasting?
Am I missing something? It's like he's working a shell game con with them.
That is exactly what is happening. I lost a bunch of weight losing on low carb. But I only ate 2 meals a day and didn't eat after 7 PM. I was taking in maybe 1500 calories (while working out a few hours a day). But I believed it was totatlly the carbs.
When I would go 'off plan' I would eat everything in site till I felt sick to my stomach. God knows how many calories I was eating but it was totes the carbs that were evil.
Carbs are only the devil for weightloss when they make up most of the diet, though that actually applies to most people anymore. Obviously when cutting them out, weight's going to fall, unless compensated for by another macro.
The funny thing to me though, is that given all of the "zomg how do I reach protein goal?!?" threads, low-carb would probably help a lot of the strugglers here, assuming that they didn't suddenly start eating three pounds of bacon, or drinking bottles of oil in place of their absurd pasta servings.1 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »What kind of question is this? That's like asking if it's really that important to know how to operate a car to get your drivers license. It's the ONLY thing that matters. Eat too much, you're not losing a dang thing.
There are plenty of people who do not believe in CICO, including many doctors like Dr. Fung.
Yep, here is his take on cico:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
"I studied biochemistry in university and took a full year course on thermodynamics. At no point did we ever discuss the human body or weight gain/ loss."
I'm guessing he did not get stellar marks in his biochem or thermo class.
I majored in biochemistry and genetics, and the biochem classes were more about differences and similarities in processes between prokaryotes/eukaryotes, plant/animal, you get the idea. Not so much that was tied particularly to humans except by default as members of the animal kingdom.
Physics classes never mentioned any applicability to the human body. I took first-year physics and physical chemistry (intersection of physics and chemistry). Presumably explicitly connecting these things to human physiology as part of the classwork is the kind of thing you'd get in medical school, not so much in undergrad where you're taught the broader principles unless you take something specifically oriented that way like human physiology or human nutrition.
That said, it's not any kind of decent reason to suggest that CICO is irrelevant
So you find it plausible that a person who is competent enough and puts in enough effort to pass a class that is an entire semester worth of macromolecules and metabolic pathways never realizes that it applies to humans because the professor did not explicitly announce that humans are animals? I am not buying it.
I am also highly skeptical that an introductory thermodynamics class did not at least briefly cover energy transfer in biological systems.
No, I don't. Thus:That said, it's not any kind of decent reason to suggest that CICO is irrelevant
My point is that the statement may very well be factual. It's the kind of tactic frequently used when you know damn well there are holes in your story but you don't have anything solid to back them up. Use the truth and make it sound like it means more than or something different than it does.
I mean, what difference does it make if some class you took didn't teach certain verifiable facts. Does it mean they aren't true or are meaningless, or does it mean that either your class was sub-standard or those facts weren't relevant to the goal of the class?
As for your last statement, we didn't have a 'thermodynamics' class available so I can't really say. In my classwork, thermodynamics came up in undergrad multiple times as part of:
physics (not connected to biology),
chemistry (not connected to biology),
biochemistry (connected to biology),
physical chemistry (not connected to biology),
organic chemistry (both biological and non-biological)
I got your point. Since you claim to be well-educated in biochemistry, I was asking if you found Fung's account plausible, so thanks for the confirmation. I agree the actual content of his course syllabus is rather immaterial, as I also understand that it is possible that his account is true. However, I believe it is near the same probability of being true as the hypothetical person who claims to watch the entire World Series without understanding they were watching baseball.
As an electrical engineer, I find his account of taking a year of thermodynamics and not making the connection that the human body is a thermodynamic system to be laughable. His entire article demonstrates a gross misunderstanding (or perhaps, misrepresentation) of thermodynamic fundamentals. I likewise have to conclude that he is intelligent enough to persuade laypeople of his arguments, though I also perceive his motivation to most likely be profit oriented at the expense of his own cognitive dissonance.
Sadly, I'd find that to be more plausible. I work in a major health care system in research. I've heard the nonsense about 'the laws of thermodynamics don't really apply because a body/cell culture is not a closed system' more than once from people with degrees that ought to indicate a higher level of knowledge (MD, PhD). Presumably, all of them had at least the classwork I had in undergrad at some point*. Maybe they scraped by with Cs and Ds?
Oh, and before you make any assumptions about me being well-educated in biochemistry, I am. But I've not worked in the field in any meaningful way in nearly 20yrs, so the education has largely degenerated to: 'I remember something about this or that - let's go look it up and make sure my memory isn't faulty'.
*Except perhaps physical chemistry.
Interesting. I never see those kind of shenanigans in my field. Perhaps it is because we have to design things that work to do a very specific task, so there is not a lot of theoretical interpretation involved. I will chalk it up to the MDs just forgetting the basics because it was that one 8 AM Monday class they took a long time ago, during that semester they were experimenting with mushrooms.
In fact, the only time I think I have ever read people use this hand-waving open system argument is in the fitness/nutrition industry. It usually precedes an argument that sounds like: "I am about to propose a tangent that ignores several centuries of established physics, but the human body is an open system, so the laws of thermodynamics can be ignored. Here are some misinterpreted results from a recent study that proves my point."
Fun fact: I recently managed to put a drill bit through my thumb. Instead of stitching me up, the doctors left the wound open to drain. After this accident, I discovered I now have the ability to eat infinite cheeseburgers without gaining weight. One would assume that I would accumulate some body fat by eating such a large amount of calories, but when the skin was breached, my body became an open thermodynamic system. The truth is, an open system can exchange matter with its surrounding environment, so clearly no laws of physics have been violated. In fact, recent studies have shown that when the thermodynamic boundary has been compromised, standard human thermoregulation models decompose, and metabolism is in fact increased so significantly that lipogenesis is inhibited (1)."
Do you like how this works?
Absolutely. I'd suffer regular paper cuts or similar for the ability to eat whatever and not gain. It'd be useful at the holidays, for certain.
BTW, when I hear those comments - it's almost always a group of PhDs or MDs discussing, you guessed it, how to lose weight. It's as though they don't have the ability to use prior knowledge to fend off internet woo.3 -
Mary_Anastasia wrote: »I love how everyone assumes I don't weigh or measure my food haha. No, here's the deal:
I meticulously weighed my food, ate all organic, such as like I mentioned (yogurt, beans, seeds, etc) and was good about getting my macros in and still coming in under my calorie goal. In 2 years of eating like that I maintained and oftentimes gained weight, I hit my high this year.
Now this year, I became very very depressed and had little appetite, I stayed below my calorie goal while eating Subway and McDonalds almost every day because I was too depressed to cook. I lost 30lbs in 6 weeks.
As a reminder: I stayed below my 1,300 calorie goal the entire time while depressed, and, well, I'd say 90% of the time while eating healthily.
Always be brutally honest about the CICO equation. The brutally honest link covers it all.
1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »In other words, my original point is that carbs cause a spike in BG (and a fast and quick insulin response to the BG spike) and protein creates a much slower and smaller rise in BG (and a much slower and smaller insulin response to the small and slow BG rise). The effect of carbs on insulin and BG is very different than the effect of protein on insulin and BG.
At this point, I can't tell if there is disagreement about that point or if it just isn't understood. I acknowledge that I don't often articulate my knowledge very well; but I've tried to say the same thing several different ways and instead of better understanding each time, I get the impression that people become more confused. When I see responses that make my point and yet are intended to debate the same point, I feel like what I'm saying just isn't understood. I'm not exactly a teacher, and I don't know how I can be more clear. So I'm just going to leave it at that unless you can give some additional feedback to help me to better explain this to you.
Well it depends what you are trying to defend. You are applying a transient interaction based on a rebutal that only discussed insulin. So in a literal sense, i would disagree that insulin doesnt provide as high of a response (total volume) as many carbs. The insulin index would support what i am saying. But when you discuss other factors, its can complicate things... no difference then what happens when you don't at in isolation.
Even so, the application of this information is low. Not many people have type I diabetes and have to worry about the factors you do and we dont eat in isolation. In this context, composition of meals is what is important.
I will say i have found this interesting but in terms of the OP I don't find much application.
There may be application to OP if something there leads to an explanation of why I started losing so much more quickly when, without changing calories, I changed macros to low carb. My rate of loss almost tripled at the same calorie level.
My losses doubled. Approximately.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »In other words, my original point is that carbs cause a spike in BG (and a fast and quick insulin response to the BG spike) and protein creates a much slower and smaller rise in BG (and a much slower and smaller insulin response to the small and slow BG rise). The effect of carbs on insulin and BG is very different than the effect of protein on insulin and BG.
At this point, I can't tell if there is disagreement about that point or if it just isn't understood. I acknowledge that I don't often articulate my knowledge very well; but I've tried to say the same thing several different ways and instead of better understanding each time, I get the impression that people become more confused. When I see responses that make my point and yet are intended to debate the same point, I feel like what I'm saying just isn't understood. I'm not exactly a teacher, and I don't know how I can be more clear. So I'm just going to leave it at that unless you can give some additional feedback to help me to better explain this to you.
Well it depends what you are trying to defend. You are applying a transient interaction based on a rebutal that only discussed insulin. So in a literal sense, i would disagree that insulin doesnt provide as high of a response (total volume) as many carbs. The insulin index would support what i am saying. But when you discuss other factors, its can complicate things... no difference then what happens when you don't at in isolation.
Even so, the application of this information is low. Not many people have type I diabetes and have to worry about the factors you do and we dont eat in isolation. In this context, composition of meals is what is important.
I will say i have found this interesting but in terms of the OP I don't find much application.
There may be application to OP if something there leads to an explanation of why I started losing so much more quickly when, without changing calories, I changed macros to low carb. My rate of loss almost tripled at the same calorie level.
My losses doubled. Approximately.
I am not surprised. You have pretty bad IR right?1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »In other words, my original point is that carbs cause a spike in BG (and a fast and quick insulin response to the BG spike) and protein creates a much slower and smaller rise in BG (and a much slower and smaller insulin response to the small and slow BG rise). The effect of carbs on insulin and BG is very different than the effect of protein on insulin and BG.
At this point, I can't tell if there is disagreement about that point or if it just isn't understood. I acknowledge that I don't often articulate my knowledge very well; but I've tried to say the same thing several different ways and instead of better understanding each time, I get the impression that people become more confused. When I see responses that make my point and yet are intended to debate the same point, I feel like what I'm saying just isn't understood. I'm not exactly a teacher, and I don't know how I can be more clear. So I'm just going to leave it at that unless you can give some additional feedback to help me to better explain this to you.
Well it depends what you are trying to defend. You are applying a transient interaction based on a rebutal that only discussed insulin. So in a literal sense, i would disagree that insulin doesnt provide as high of a response (total volume) as many carbs. The insulin index would support what i am saying. But when you discuss other factors, its can complicate things... no difference then what happens when you don't at in isolation.
Even so, the application of this information is low. Not many people have type I diabetes and have to worry about the factors you do and we dont eat in isolation. In this context, composition of meals is what is important.
I will say i have found this interesting but in terms of the OP I don't find much application.
There may be application to OP if something there leads to an explanation of why I started losing so much more quickly when, without changing calories, I changed macros to low carb. My rate of loss almost tripled at the same calorie level.
My losses doubled. Approximately.
I am not surprised. You have pretty bad IR right?
I don't know if it is bad.... Prediabetic with a liver that really likes to pump out the glucose in the wee hours of the morning. After lunch my BG is very normal (now) with my LCHF diet. It wouldn't be normal if I chose to add bread to my tuna and mayo though.
I am pretty sure that my IR affected my weight loss when I switched to a LCHF diet. If I was metabolically healthy, I doubt LCHF would have helped my weightloss as much (or at all).0 -
From previous experience, yes. In 1993 i was on an expedition in Namibia. It involved alot of trekking in the mountains and desert. Although i had a high calorie intake and sugar and water for energy i was burning way more than i was eating. I lost two stonein that 3 months. But was all muscle..lol1
-
xDesertxRatx wrote: »From previous experience, yes. In 1993 i was on an expedition in Namibia. It involved alot of trekking in the mountains and desert. Although i had a high calorie intake and sugar and water for energy i was burning way more than i was eating. I lost two stonein that 3 months. But was all muscle..lol
I doubt it was all muscle. If you were trekking then you were utilising your leg and core muscles which will have fought off some of the catabolism from them. 2 stone of lean mass would probably be extremely detrimental to your health unless you were quite muscular beforehand.1 -
trigden1991 wrote: »xDesertxRatx wrote: »From previous experience, yes. In 1993 i was on an expedition in Namibia. It involved alot of trekking in the mountains and desert. Although i had a high calorie intake and sugar and water for energy i was burning way more than i was eating. I lost two stonein that 3 months. But was all muscle..lol
I doubt it was all muscle. If you were trekking then you were utilising your leg and core muscles which will have fought off some of the catabolism from them. 2 stone of lean mass would probably be extremely detrimental to your health unless you were quite muscular beforehand.
I was quite muscular as was in th Armed Forces at the time and specialised in Mountain and Arctic Warfare and the Desert survival so crap load of exercise. Swam for the Army and did Athletics at time. what i would give to go back to those fitness levels..lol1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions