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.

CICO/Thermodynamics/Insulin- discuss!!

1246

Replies

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,501 Member
    CynthiasChoice wrote: »
    It's harder to overeat on Keto foods than it is on ho-ho's and nachos, IMO. Keto foods are very satisfying and I naturally want to stop after a reasonable serving. But ho-ho's and nachos? Back in the day, I could easily eat 4 servings without ever feeling satisfied. Well maybe not ho-ho's - those are disgusting - but donuts or cookies:)
    Well sugar tastes good. Ask any kid. Even a baby can tell the difference between something sweet tasting and will gravitate towards that than say a brussel sprout. This is a NATURAL response to foods.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    CynthiasChoice wrote: »
    It's harder to overeat on Keto foods than it is on ho-ho's and nachos, IMO. Keto foods are very satisfying and I naturally want to stop after a reasonable serving. But ho-ho's and nachos? Back in the day, I could easily eat 4 servings without ever feeling satisfied. Well maybe not ho-ho's - those are disgusting - but donuts or cookies:)

    For you. Not for everyone.

    I ate 5 donuts yesterday, one of those days. Barely wanted to eat anything else. Those donuts totalled 1000 calories. As far as feeling sated on fewer calories, it appears carbs with some fat are my best friends. Just a shame they weren't protein donuts really, could have hit all those macros, heh.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    CynthiasChoice wrote: »
    It's harder to overeat on Keto foods than it is on ho-ho's and nachos, IMO. Keto foods are very satisfying and I naturally want to stop after a reasonable serving. But ho-ho's and nachos? Back in the day, I could easily eat 4 servings without ever feeling satisfied. Well maybe not ho-ho's - those are disgusting - but donuts or cookies:)

    It's weird to talk about "keto foods." The foods I ate when keto-ing were the same as those I eat anyway, but I just also eat some starchier sides and the like when not keto-ing. One reason I liked very low carb is that I don't much miss bread, rice, potatoes, legumes (although I think legumes are extremely healthy). I never overeat those foods.

    I did find it was too difficult to fit in fruit, as much veg as I like, nuts (which have carbs as well as fat), yogurt, which is one reason I raised my carbs a bit, but with the exception of nuts I find those to be foods I don't overeat.

    Before I watched calories I easily overate cheese, nuts, olives, and could have easily overeaten a restaurant meal that was 100% keto -- meat and veg with a cream sauce, steak salad with blue cheese dressing, etc.

    I think it's weird to focus on foods that are half carb half fat (pretty much all the ones you mention) as what are cut out on a low carb diet. They'd be hard to fit into a low fat diet too, and people who keto and want to can make all kinds of substitute sweets that I would personally find really easy to overeat.
  • anubis609
    anubis609 Posts: 3,966 Member
    I undulate between eating low carb and keto, and being an admin to a keto group online, I'll tell anyone there's nothing special about the diet other than it naturally creating a deficit because you're basically excluding an entire macro group and by nature, protein intake increases, further creating satiety.

    Leaner, insulin sensitive people tend to do better on LFHC diets and insulin resistant people tend to do better on LCHF diets, assuming adequate protein is equal between both groups.

    All in all, calories aren't the only thing that affects body mass, but it works because they're good enough to use as a proxy for what really goes on.
  • JustRobby1
    JustRobby1 Posts: 674 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    supaflyrobby1 wrote: »
    If people claim they eat less on Keto, then my thoughts are more power to them. Even if it is all psychosomatic and total nonsense from a biology standpoint, if it is something that they find helpful then good luck and god speed.

    What I am unwilling to do is give them one inch of latitude that their choice in diet is some kind of magic wand waving for weight loss or health, because it's not. Keto, like any diet to induce weight loss, operates on the simple principle of a deficit. Period. That's it. End of story. Denying themselves carbs is a personal choice that has no bearing on such matters.

    The only thing that gets me is we argue dogma with new dogma. How can we go from fat is bad for you, to carbs are bad for you, while complaining about all the people who "made up" or "influenced" scientist for arguing against fat. And all this is done while ignoring all the research around plant based foods and links to improved health markers and ignoring the healthiest and longest living countries are 70% carbs.

    I think people just needlessly conflate and confuse the issue far more than is necessary because of the prevalence of fad diets. And pseudoscience and rank nonsense perpetuated by those seeking to sell self help guides or book TV appearances do not help matters much either. The NIH, WHO and most other health oversight organizations have not changed their views much on what constitutes a healthy diet in decades. What has changed is pop culture, which has little basis in actual science on the whole.

    Too many people seem to believe that the only way to be successful in this game is to radically change their diet and turn their life upside down, which is simply not true. Furthermore, most people who do try to radically change their life all at once end up failing. Probably the most valuable lesson anyone can learn who is on this path has nothing to do with carbs, protein, gluten, GMO, organic, or any other trend in the diet or nutrition industry. It's calories and portion control. If you can master this, you will inevitably drop BMI. This is a biological and physiological certainty of the human body. This also has far more and immeasurable long term health benefits than fixating on pop culture trends or magazine rack headlines ever will.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,389 MFP Moderator
    RAD_Fitness wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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)
    Of course hormones matter. But you're speaking of the general population. I betting you're more on the level of concern with COMPETITION since you compete. And if we're being honest in competition, there are no competitors I know of who just use FOOD ONLY to prep for a contest and low body fat %. Supplements and other drugs are definitely implemented into their diets.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png


    Firstly, just because your friends doing competitions are on drugs, doesn't mean everyone is.

    Secondly, hormones play more of a role than anything in terms of fat loss and muscle gain. They literally change the way your body works for the good or for the bad depending on what they're doing. They literally effect CICO to the point people can have a lot of trouble losing any weight at all and to the point where muscle gain is pretty much inevitable. They change the way your body absorbs nutrients, it's literally the most important part in determining our body composition.

    While I don't doubt hormones changes during weight loss (I know ghrelin and leptin do) but not to the magnitude you are suggesting. Or maybe you can expand on which specific hormones you are talking about. Test is generally a concern for lean males (more so competitors) during contest prep who aggressively cut fat. But that doesn't apply to the average dieter.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    RAD_Fitness wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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)
    Of course hormones matter. But you're speaking of the general population. I betting you're more on the level of concern with COMPETITION since you compete. And if we're being honest in competition, there are no competitors I know of who just use FOOD ONLY to prep for a contest and low body fat %. Supplements and other drugs are definitely implemented into their diets.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png


    Firstly, just because your friends doing competitions are on drugs, doesn't mean everyone is.

    Secondly, hormones play more of a role than anything in terms of fat loss and muscle gain. They literally change the way your body works for the good or for the bad depending on what they're doing. They literally effect CICO to the point people can have a lot of trouble losing any weight at all and to the point where muscle gain is pretty much inevitable. They change the way your body absorbs nutrients, it's literally the most important part in determining our body composition.

    I want proof - literally I do.

    Technically, I think Test can be categorized as a hormone.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    supaflyrobby1 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    supaflyrobby1 wrote: »
    If people claim they eat less on Keto, then my thoughts are more power to them. Even if it is all psychosomatic and total nonsense from a biology standpoint, if it is something that they find helpful then good luck and god speed.

    What I am unwilling to do is give them one inch of latitude that their choice in diet is some kind of magic wand waving for weight loss or health, because it's not. Keto, like any diet to induce weight loss, operates on the simple principle of a deficit. Period. That's it. End of story. Denying themselves carbs is a personal choice that has no bearing on such matters.

    The only thing that gets me is we argue dogma with new dogma. How can we go from fat is bad for you, to carbs are bad for you, while complaining about all the people who "made up" or "influenced" scientist for arguing against fat. And all this is done while ignoring all the research around plant based foods and links to improved health markers and ignoring the healthiest and longest living countries are 70% carbs.

    I think people just needlessly conflate and confuse the issue far more than is necessary because of the prevalence of fad diets. And pseudoscience and rank nonsense perpetuated by those seeking to sell self help guides or book TV appearances do not help matters much either. The NIH, WHO and most other health oversight organizations have not changed their views much on what constitutes a healthy diet in decades. What has changed is pop culture, which has little basis in actual science on the whole.

    Too many people seem to believe that the only way to be successful in this game is to radically change their diet and turn their life upside down, which is simply not true. Furthermore, most people who do try to radically change their life all at once end up failing. Probably the most valuable lesson anyone can learn who is on this path has nothing to do with carbs, protein, gluten, GMO, organic, or any other trend in the diet or nutrition industry. It's calories and portion control. If you can master this, you will inevitably drop BMI. This is a biological and physiological certainty of the human body. This also has far more and immeasurable long term health benefits than fixating on pop culture trends or magazine rack headlines ever will.

    The state of journalism is simply abhorrent and science journalism is no better. This has crossed the boundary of misinformation to pure disinformation in many cases.

    Scientists tend to do an excellent job when conducting research, but extremely poor when this crosses over to establishing policy. Hence the dramatic difference between a study and actuated policy. Note that in nearly all cases - cholesterol, salt, fat, gluten, carbs, protein, BPA, etc. the actual study results tend to be very simple and parrot "Moderation is key. If you have a diagnosed condition with higher risk, minimize or avoid." Somehow this gets conflated to "AVOID GLUTEN!!!"

    Medical advice to weight management has not changed in decades and essentially boils down to "Make gradual changes" and "Eat less, move more".
  • MommyMeggo
    MommyMeggo Posts: 1,222 Member
    edited July 2017
    RAD_Fitness wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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)
    Of course hormones matter. But you're speaking of the general population. I betting you're more on the level of concern with COMPETITION since you compete. And if we're being honest in competition, there are no competitors I know of who just use FOOD ONLY to prep for a contest and low body fat %. Supplements and other drugs are definitely implemented into their diets.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png


    Firstly, just because your friends doing competitions are on drugs, doesn't mean everyone is.

    Secondly, hormones play more of a role than anything in terms of fat loss and muscle gain. They literally change the way your body works for the good or for the bad depending on what they're doing. They literally effect CICO to the point people can have a lot of trouble losing any weight at all and to the point where muscle gain is pretty much inevitable. They change the way your body absorbs nutrients, it's literally the most important part in determining our body composition.

    ...more than anything?
    Methinks this is incorrect.

    Edit: I ate 3000 calories yesterday- but its probably my hormones more than anything that caused 1600 of them to be stored as fat.
  • JustRobby1
    JustRobby1 Posts: 674 Member
    edited July 2017
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    supaflyrobby1 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    supaflyrobby1 wrote: »
    If people claim they eat less on Keto, then my thoughts are more power to them. Even if it is all psychosomatic and total nonsense from a biology standpoint, if it is something that they find helpful then good luck and god speed.

    What I am unwilling to do is give them one inch of latitude that their choice in diet is some kind of magic wand waving for weight loss or health, because it's not. Keto, like any diet to induce weight loss, operates on the simple principle of a deficit. Period. That's it. End of story. Denying themselves carbs is a personal choice that has no bearing on such matters.

    The only thing that gets me is we argue dogma with new dogma. How can we go from fat is bad for you, to carbs are bad for you, while complaining about all the people who "made up" or "influenced" scientist for arguing against fat. And all this is done while ignoring all the research around plant based foods and links to improved health markers and ignoring the healthiest and longest living countries are 70% carbs.

    I think people just needlessly conflate and confuse the issue far more than is necessary because of the prevalence of fad diets. And pseudoscience and rank nonsense perpetuated by those seeking to sell self help guides or book TV appearances do not help matters much either. The NIH, WHO and most other health oversight organizations have not changed their views much on what constitutes a healthy diet in decades. What has changed is pop culture, which has little basis in actual science on the whole.

    Too many people seem to believe that the only way to be successful in this game is to radically change their diet and turn their life upside down, which is simply not true. Furthermore, most people who do try to radically change their life all at once end up failing. Probably the most valuable lesson anyone can learn who is on this path has nothing to do with carbs, protein, gluten, GMO, organic, or any other trend in the diet or nutrition industry. It's calories and portion control. If you can master this, you will inevitably drop BMI. This is a biological and physiological certainty of the human body. This also has far more and immeasurable long term health benefits than fixating on pop culture trends or magazine rack headlines ever will.

    The state of journalism is simply abhorrent and science journalism is no better. This has crossed the boundary of misinformation to pure disinformation in many cases.

    Scientists tend to do an excellent job when conducting research, but extremely poor when this crosses over to establishing policy. Hence the dramatic difference between a study and actuated policy. Note that in nearly all cases - cholesterol, salt, fat, gluten, carbs, protein, BPA, etc. the actual study results tend to be very simple and parrot "Moderation is key. If you have a diagnosed condition with higher risk, minimize or avoid." Somehow this gets conflated to "AVOID GLUTEN!!!"

    Medical advice to weight management has not changed in decades and essentially boils down to "Make gradual changes" and "Eat less, move more".

    I would agree, and I think part of the problem lies in the fact that the vast majority of scientific research is articulated mainly amongst peers in the field, not the general public. When was the last time the average Joe Blow citizen picked up a copy of Science, Nature, or most any other highly respected peer reviewed journal with a ridiculously hight impact factor? The answer to this is probably never. Scientific literacy in the US is atrocious.

    What this leads to is sometimes journalists get ahold of an abstract which they grossly take out of context and then embellish to the point of absurdity, as you alluded to. If you were to ask the scientist that actually wrote the paper (or hell, any reasonably intelligent person who has even read it) they would tell you "WHOA, don't put words in my mouth, that is not what the research was pointing to at all." Science is a game of incrementalism in most fields. Most researchers are not going to stake their reputation on wide reaching and outrageous claims. Doing so would dry up their grant money and tarnish their credibility in short order. They are almost always humble and calculated when they report their findings, and nearly always end with "further research is needed". Eventually concepts and theories do become so widely accepted they become "scientific law", but only after lab after lab after lab repeats the experiment with similar methodology and gets conclusively similar results.

    Granted that some folks in science do spend a significant amount of time and energy pointing out the nonsense in pop culture health claims. Organizations like https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ , http://www.quackwatch.org/ and others do a great job with this. But the overwhelming majority simply think such claims are too ridiculous to spend the time refuting, which is why many of them are allowed to persist in the public consciousness.

Categories