CICO/Thermodynamics/Insulin- discuss!!

No wonder you are confused. Don't read woo articles and you'll be good.

Very good article.

You will notice the people who are so gung-ho about CICO will instantly take the article as completely irrelevant and useless when it is in reality a good educational article.

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

Very good article.

You will notice the people who are so gung-ho about CICO will instantly take the article as completely irrelevant and useless when it is in reality a good educational article.

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

Very good article.

You will notice the people who are so gung-ho about CICO will instantly take the article as completely irrelevant and useless when it is in reality a good educational article.

Wow! Okay. Give me your thoughts on how it is good. Confused how you can think other rules apply to calorie deficits.

estherdragonbat wrote: »

Well, when just watching my calorie intake has resulted in a 68.2-lb loss and I haven't been targeting specific macros beyond trying to get my protein and iron... I'm a bit hard-pressed to say I've been doing it wrong.

Same here. Borderline high cholesterol and got my weight to normal, now I have perfect numbers all the while eating anything I want but less calories than I need.

Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.

But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.

I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.

Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.

But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.

I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.

Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)

So what though. I am happy in the way I eat and the physical things I can do. I don't want to enter into competitions or get 6 pack abs, I just want to have fun and be able to go long hiking adventures. Machu pichu is on my bucket list. I am healthy and happy.

Sloth2016 wrote: »

Down about 80 lbs so far by eating a little less and moving a little more.
Thinking about nutrient partitioning a Poptart as I write this.

Which flavor?

I'm having a pineapple Mai Tai. Nutrient partitioning my pineapple from my guava.

Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »

Sloth2016 wrote: »

Down about 80 lbs so far by eating a little less and moving a little more.
Thinking about nutrient partitioning a Poptart as I write this.

Which flavor?

I'm having a pineapple Mai Tai. Nutrient partitioning my pineapple from my guava.

Cookies and Cream! I need to find a way to combine Poptarts and alcohol for maximum nutrient partitioning!

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.

But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.

I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.

Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)

For the obese and insulin resistant maybe. For the rest, not so much. Interesting that you mention hormones but never mention hunger/satiety hormones, ghrelin and leptin which are probably more significant than what you've mentioned. If you hate CICO, maybe this is not the place for you as that is this sites primary mission and many have had great results doing exactly that.

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.

But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.

I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.

Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)

Sure. I'm not a nutrition expert like you are, but it certainly seems like other factors (besides macro composition of eating or mere calorie level) affect the proportion of fat vs. lean tissue lost during weight loss, such as exercise (and even type of exercise) or weight loss rate.

That's even ignoring factors that are hugely important in weight loss as a practical matter, such as compliance or satiation. (A way of eating one can't sustain can result in slow or no weight loss, making it pretty irrelevant what percent of fat vs lean tissue would've theoretically been lost on the diet in question.)

But issues like that are discussed around here all the time, and even by CICO bigots like me.

Efficiency isn't everything either. Best balance of all the relevant factors - which is individual - is necessary. I'd rather retain muscle as much as possible while losing fat, but managing energy balance (CICO) is crucial to losing weight at all IMO, and nutrient partitioning is only one of the factors in muscle retention.

Most of us who don't do something crazy-extreme are going to lose the overwhelming of our weight from fat, perhaps a bit from lean, and gain very substantial health benefits from the totality.

Calorie counting is a practical starting point for many: Simple, achievable. I suspect many then fine-tune nutrition, exercise, etc., over time to better meet whole-life goals. Do we need to start them off with a more complicated theoretically-better mental model and a potentially bigger basket of compliance challenges?

sgt1372 wrote: »

Just as the concept of CICO is over-simplified, so is Fung's argument in the article promoting LCHF in order to control insulin levels.

There is no mention of the GI (glycemic index) which is a measure of whether the carbs actually are likely to promote or depress insulin release (and hence depress or increase fat metabolism) or not and there is absolutely no discussion of the effect of the consumption of protein and its interaction w/low or hi GI carbs on insulin levels and muscle loss and/or growth either.

For another level of detail in this regard, see the following article as well:

https://www.bodybuilding.com/content/the-muscle-building-messenger-complete-guide-to-insulin.html

The LCHF apporoach also does not explain how I lost about 39# of BW from 196 to 157 and dropped my BF from over 20% down to 10% in a year on a high protein high carb and low fat deficit diet with a macro ratio of 40P/40C/20F, which is entirely contrary to the LCHF concept.

He does discuss GI and also Glycemic Load in his book. I've read it. It is a strange mix of woo and decent info. It applies most to obese, insulin resistant people. His final recommendations are not unreasonable for sedentary dieters as well as obese and IR people. Lower added sugars and simple carbs, up fats, moderate protein, intermittent fasting. No flash of brilliance really. When I got to the conclusions/ recommendation, I kind of felt like "really? I read this whole book just for this?" For me the most useful idea is that IF can be helpful with hunger and satiety (Ghrelin and Leptin). Not an original idea of his. Others who have written on IF have suggested this.

But he totally denies calorie counting as a factor. Also, his references to Taubes, Lustig and Wheat Belly were real eye rollers for me. His clinic focuses on the obese and IR. Thus the name of his book "The Obesity Code" His methods would likely work well for that population. For most of us, all this focusing on hormones is truly majoring in the minors and just a distraction from keeping the focusing on the key things that will make a difference. Namely, eating less and moving more. We have a whole site here dedicated to helping to that. It will and has helped most people, even many that used to be obese!

stevencloser wrote: »

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

VintageFeline wrote: »

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.

But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.

I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.

Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)

Except, the primary way to maintain muscle and maximise fat loss is adequate protein alongside strength training. And that is stressed quite a lot.

For the vast majority of the population, including those with specific aesthetic goals that will achieved through some sort of strength straining then nutrient partitioning, hormone levels (which, incidentally, is also often addressed by the recommendation to take diet breaks and eat at maintenance for one or two weeks) and macros beyond hitting protein and enough fat for nutrient absorption then we get to majoring in the minors.

There's not many wanting to get a physique for bikini or bodybuilding competitions. There's not many who want to look like a fitness model. Most people just want to be a healthy weight and look good, to them, in their clothes.

Do you really think 50 year old Joe or Josephine Blogs wants to be drowned in the minors you're so obsessed with?

I'm obsessed with helping people succeed.

Hormones is not a "minor".

And I'm not even sure what you're saying in the second paragraph so I can't even respond.

Hormones are very much a minor.
A calorie deficit: absolutely required, no way around it EVER for any sort of loss at all to occur as well as easily controlled -> major factor
Protein and exercise: Very important for body composition, i.e. fat loss vs. lean mass loss, less important the more fat you have on your body, easily controlled -> major factor
Hormones: at best make a small difference (not a "huge effect" as you call it) and are pretty much unknown variables to anyone dieting unless they're going to a doctor every other week to get them checked -> minor factor if you can even call it that.

QTF and awesomeness!

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

VintageFeline wrote: »

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.

But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.

I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.

Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)

Except, the primary way to maintain muscle and maximise fat loss is adequate protein alongside strength training. And that is stressed quite a lot.

For the vast majority of the population, including those with specific aesthetic goals that will achieved through some sort of strength straining then nutrient partitioning, hormone levels (which, incidentally, is also often addressed by the recommendation to take diet breaks and eat at maintenance for one or two weeks) and macros beyond hitting protein and enough fat for nutrient absorption then we get to majoring in the minors.

There's not many wanting to get a physique for bikini or bodybuilding competitions. There's not many who want to look like a fitness model. Most people just want to be a healthy weight and look good, to them, in their clothes.

Do you really think 50 year old Joe or Josephine Blogs wants to be drowned in the minors you're so obsessed with?

I'm obsessed with helping people succeed.

Hormones is not a "minor".

And I'm not even sure what you're saying in the second paragraph so I can't even respond.

Just to respond about the "I don't know what you're saying". I'm supposing you mean my point about advanced aesthetic/building goals. Those are the people for whom cyclical dieting (such as Lyle McDonalds UD2.0) is going to be a consideration. Much the same as PSMF and RFL is largely going to be implemented by that category of dieter. Of course there's outliers but that's it, they're outliers, most dieters don't care about super specific protocols to squeak out every last ounce of fat over muscle loss.

For MOST dieters a KISS approach is all that's needed. Eat within your calories, don't cut too hard, take breaks, eat your protein and you should be strength training.

This again?


First of all the good doc begins with the construction of a strawman:

"CICO adherents believe you take calories in, subtract calories out and whatever is left over is dumped into fat stores like a potato into a sack. So, they believe that fat stores are essentially unregulated. Every night, like a store manager closing its books, they imagine the body counts up calories in, calories out and deposits the rest into the fat ‘bank’. Of course, nothing is further from the truth."

This is not correct and Dr. Fung offers nothing to advancement of ideas - he's using a rhetorical tactics to maximize position.

Hormones are an extremely minor factor at play. To the point this has been repeatedly proven with clinical evidence. As evidenced by those with hormonal disorders this amounts to an ~5% decrease in Resting Energy Expenditure (REE).

So the facts indeed show that Calorie In (Primary factor) and Calorie Out (Close Secondary factor) and the dominant drivers in this equation. Hormones are truly minor, unless you believe that 5% impact is anything but. To further the absurdity of this suggestion - hormones are free cycling, so cannot be in balance if you are overweight. It's a matter of binding site affinity, so a given gland will have to overproduce to get the desired impact in an overweight person.

The root cause of the problem is Dr. Fung's deliberate attempt to misconstrue the facts and focusing on his field of expertise - one which appears to be little more than a noisy variable.