Clearly CICO has no bearing on my recent weight loss
Options
Replies
-
singingflutelady wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »Math? Not a thing.
Thermodynamics? Not a thing.
Laws of energy conservation? Not a thing.
Gluten-free? You might be on to something there......
If there is more gluconeogenesis doing LC or IF, then thermodynamics demands there be a metabolic advantage doing those things. Any process, including gluconeogensis ins't 100% efficient in energy conversion, so that alone proves that what you eat and possibly when you eat does make a difference.
Look at long-term results.
Long term results are the accumulation of short terms results and if IF and LC have short term results and are adhered to in the long term, you will get long term results doing them.
Except in the long term LC has no advantage over other woe with the same calorie deficit.
I asked some questions and you completely ignored them. What do you base your statement on?7 -
Silentpadna wrote: »Math? Not a thing.
Thermodynamics? Not a thing.
Laws of energy conservation? Not a thing.
Gluten-free? You might be on to something there......
If there is more gluconeogenesis doing LC or IF, then thermodynamics demands there be a metabolic advantage doing those things. Any process, including gluconeogensis ins't 100% efficient in energy conversion, so that alone proves that what you eat and possibly when you eat does make a difference.
Understood. Obviously we are not machines with steady inputs and outputs. The machine parts are constantly changing and of course, energy use and needs vary constantly. The issues you bring up, which have validity, are minor compared to the declaration of the original poster, who is talking about weight loss (paraphrasing) having nothing to do with CICO (unless of course the poster's weight loss is due entirely to water...). That's simply not the case. And can't be.0 -
Silentpadna wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »Math? Not a thing.
Thermodynamics? Not a thing.
Laws of energy conservation? Not a thing.
Gluten-free? You might be on to something there......
If there is more gluconeogenesis doing LC or IF, then thermodynamics demands there be a metabolic advantage doing those things. Any process, including gluconeogensis ins't 100% efficient in energy conversion, so that alone proves that what you eat and possibly when you eat does make a difference.
Understood. Obviously we are not machines with steady inputs and outputs. The machine parts are constantly changing and of course, energy use and needs vary constantly. The issues you bring up, which have validity, are minor compared to the declaration of the original poster, who is talking about weight loss (paraphrasing) having nothing to do with CICO (unless of course the poster's weight loss is due entirely to water...). That's simply not the case. And can't be.
I agree that it is always about energy balance. My point is LC and IF effect the energy balance due to more gluconeogenesis and the inefficiencies associated with it. I think that people who say those things don't matter, really don't understand some of the nuances of CICO. A person can always out-eat those effects and gain weight while doing LC or IF or when not doing those things.12 -
Low-carb alone isnt it, low carb high fat is where the best results will come from, because fats are not converted to glucose.
False, fats can absolutely be converted to glucose through glucenogenisis. During the process two glycerol molecules combine after the fatty acids are oxidized.
And as for your previous statement regarding metabolic advantage... that has been through around the lchf for quite some time, all driven by poorly designed studies that don't control protein intakes of which protein does have a metabolic advantage. Its one of the things evaulated in the kevin halls studies, where calories and protein were equated for.
OP, you have a autoimmune disease. Eating gluten will cause severe inflammation driving a host of responses from that. If you want a comparison, it needs to be equated for that.20 -
Low-carb alone isnt it, low carb high fat is where the best results will come from, because fats are not converted to glucose.
False, fats can absolutely be converted to glucose through glucenogenisis. During the process two glycerol molecules combine after the fatty acids are oxidized.
And as for your previous statement regarding metabolic advantage... that has been through around the lchf for quite some time, all driven by poorly designed studies that don't control protein intakes of which protein does have a metabolic advantage. Its one of the things evaulated in the kevin halls studies, where calories and protein were equated for.
OP, you have a autoimmune disease. Eating gluten will cause severe inflammation driving a host of responses from that. If you want a comparison, it needs to be equated for that.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/3/519.full12 -
Low-carb alone isnt it, low carb high fat is where the best results will come from, because fats are not converted to glucose.
False, fats can absolutely be converted to glucose through glucenogenisis. During the process two glycerol molecules combine after the fatty acids are oxidized.
And as for your previous statement regarding metabolic advantage... that has been through around the lchf for quite some time, all driven by poorly designed studies that don't control protein intakes of which protein does have a metabolic advantage. Its one of the things evaulated in the kevin halls studies, where calories and protein were equated for.
OP, you have a autoimmune disease. Eating gluten will cause severe inflammation driving a host of responses from that. If you want a comparison, it needs to be equated for that.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/3/519.full
Ill have to look at the study tomorrow but what argument are you making? Or did you just look for a study to suggest that glucenogenisis increases EE?
Just posting a study without an argument doesnt drive discussion.7 -
So your source is a study with ten (10) whole average weight young adult men.Ten healthy men [body mass index (kg/m2): 23.0 ± 0.8; age: 23 ± 1 y] were recruited by advertisements placed on notice boards at the university.
12 -
rude!JustRobby1 wrote: »Ah yes, we have yet another medical miracle in the house. *Yawn* I'll be sure to alert the media
I wish there was a thumbs down option here.36 -
Low-carb alone isnt it, low carb high fat is where the best results will come from, because fats are not converted to glucose.
False, fats can absolutely be converted to glucose through glucenogenisis. During the process two glycerol molecules combine after the fatty acids are oxidized.
And as for your previous statement regarding metabolic advantage... that has been through around the lchf for quite some time, all driven by poorly designed studies that don't control protein intakes of which protein does have a metabolic advantage. Its one of the things evaulated in the kevin halls studies, where calories and protein were equated for.
OP, you have a autoimmune disease. Eating gluten will cause severe inflammation driving a host of responses from that. If you want a comparison, it needs to be equated for that.
The amount by which fat would be affected by glucogenesis is negligible, which is evident in the lack of insulin release.
Does protein increase metabolism? I was saying that keto changes the way the metabolism functions in that different substances are being broken down for energy, which also has different effects on how the body responds. I wasn't aware protein increases metabolism if that's what you meant. Thank you for telling me about Dr. Hall's studies, I'll check them out.8 -
High carb is not efficient for many either. Low carb may increase glucogenesis but if you are getting the mother load of glucose from carbs it is still much less than what you would get from amino acids being converted to glucose
I meant much more, not much less. I think it's bedtime. Goodnight all.0 -
Newgoals1966 wrote: »I am a 51yo with a strong family history of Celiac Disease, and saw so many things change for the better once I dropped gluten. No more migraines, better sleep, no sugar cravings and better moods in general.
After a month of eating what I want sans gluten, I am down 6 pounds and find my clothing is significantly baggier - I have dropped a jean size in four weeks! So while MFP suggested me keeping my calories down to 1200 to meet a 20 pound weight loss goal, I am eating hundreds more each day and losing at a healthy pace.
Logic would have it that by watching sugar, eating enough protein and choosing healthy carbs for the most part, my body is shedding fat with no need for restrictive caloric intake. I do not have a perfect diet by any stretch, but my body seems to respond better to letting go of the extra pounds since I kicked gluten from my diet.
So after following outdated and restrictive weight loss paths, I have finally found the one way to lose the stubborn pounds that refused to budge. Just wanted to post for anyone frustrated by watching the calories like a hawk, only to see no real progress for their trouble.
Just out of curiosity, how would you advise the general public to apply your experience with gluten sensitivity to problems they may be having losing weight?8 -
I knew a person that once lost 30 pounds while eating whatever he wanted. CICO is a lie, just like his phantom limb pain!29
-
This is the least restrictive method to lose weight.
You are still clearly eating in a calorie deficit to lose weight, there is no defying that fact it comes down to a calorie deficit. Can't lose weight without being in one. Good for you for finding something that worked for you!
There is a big difference between "MUST lose in a calorie deficit" and "can't lose unless you have a calorie deficit". The 1st statement is a fact, then second, not as much so. If the second were true, then no weight loss drugs would ever work and I do think there are some out there that do work, maybe with really bad side effects, but it shows that it can be possible to lose some without the CICO calculated deficits.
any weight loss pill that actually worked would be affecting the "CO" side of the equation, so you'd still be in a deficit while eating calories that would normally be maintenance level.
People who say you can't lose more than CICO predicts will lump those losses to more CO, but is the CO based on a metabolic need to support the activity and bmr or is the fat just released (with a possible raise in body temp that is independent of workload) without a need for it to be released?
Minor technical quibble: CICO doesn't predict, at least not in the sense of predicting that any specific person will lose a specific amount at a specific calculated calorie level. Two people of the same size, age, and sex may lose at different rates on the same calorie level, with the same activities.
CICO merely posits a central role for calorie balance: That I will lose, maintain or gain when I eat below, above, or exactly at my own personal, idiosyncratic calorie level. You can't predict this calorie level with reliable precision. You can estimate it with a fairly large potential range of error, or determine it experimentally with closer accuracy.
I eat several hundred calories more daily than any calculator says I can, and my weight stays consistent. (This is true, not a theoretical proposition.)
Some less fortunate people have to eat several hundred calories less than calculators predict, to maintain the same weight.
In neither case is CICO violated, nor are the laws of physics.
In the example you use, a raise in body temp is an increase in CO. It's also "work". Energy is being burned. In my example, perhaps one reason some people burn slightly more calories is that they have a slightly higher than average body temperature.
(Body temp isn't exactly the same for everyone, either.) 7 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »This is the least restrictive method to lose weight.
You are still clearly eating in a calorie deficit to lose weight, there is no defying that fact it comes down to a calorie deficit. Can't lose weight without being in one. Good for you for finding something that worked for you!
There is a big difference between "MUST lose in a calorie deficit" and "can't lose unless you have a calorie deficit". The 1st statement is a fact, then second, not as much so. If the second were true, then no weight loss drugs would ever work and I do think there are some out there that do work, maybe with really bad side effects, but it shows that it can be possible to lose some without the CICO calculated deficits.
Those pills that really do help are amphetamines. They reduce appetite and cause restlessness. CICO.
Yes, appetite suppressants.
The other sort that do work ( if you can put up with the side effects) are the sort that interfere with fat absorption. So you can eat more and your body does not absorb the calories from the fat content - therefore, of course, the fat content is eliminated in your faeces - it has to go somewhere, it doesn't just vanish.
Super smelly incontinent poo explosions - but, sure, you lose weight.
And obviously this doesn't negate CICO - as calories in is reduced. The same way it is in diseases like chrohn s disease or coeliac disease where the person cannot absorb some types of food.
5 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »This is the least restrictive method to lose weight.
You are still clearly eating in a calorie deficit to lose weight, there is no defying that fact it comes down to a calorie deficit. Can't lose weight without being in one. Good for you for finding something that worked for you!
There is a big difference between "MUST lose in a calorie deficit" and "can't lose unless you have a calorie deficit". The 1st statement is a fact, then second, not as much so. If the second were true, then no weight loss drugs would ever work and I do think there are some out there that do work, maybe with really bad side effects, but it shows that it can be possible to lose some without the CICO calculated deficits.
Those pills that really do help are amphetamines. They reduce appetite and cause restlessness. CICO.
Don't they also tend to damage the heart? Or am I misremembering?
yes it's meth pretty much lol2 -
Newgoals1966 wrote: »I am a 51yo with a strong family history of Celiac Disease, and saw so many things change for the better once I dropped gluten. No more migraines, better sleep, no sugar cravings and better moods in general.
After a month of eating what I want sans gluten, I am down 6 pounds and find my clothing is significantly baggier - I have dropped a jean size in four weeks! So while MFP suggested me keeping my calories down to 1200 to meet a 20 pound weight loss goal, I am eating hundreds more each day and losing at a healthy pace.
Logic would have it that by watching sugar, eating enough protein and choosing healthy carbs for the most part, my body is shedding fat with no need for restrictive caloric intake. I do not have a perfect diet by any stretch, but my body seems to respond better to letting go of the extra pounds since I kicked gluten from my diet.
So after following outdated and restrictive weight loss paths, I have finally found the one way to lose the stubborn pounds that refused to budge. Just wanted to post for anyone frustrated by watching the calories like a hawk, only to see no real progress for their trouble.
You keep using that word, restrictive, to describe a diet that keys you eat anything you want. Instead, your following a diet that won't allow you to eat fruit. I'm glad you found a way to create a calorie deficit that works for you. But I don't think your using "restrictive" properly.14 -
singingflutelady wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »Math? Not a thing.
Thermodynamics? Not a thing.
Laws of energy conservation? Not a thing.
Gluten-free? You might be on to something there......
If there is more gluconeogenesis doing LC or IF, then thermodynamics demands there be a metabolic advantage doing those things. Any process, including gluconeogensis ins't 100% efficient in energy conversion, so that alone proves that what you eat and possibly when you eat does make a difference.
Look at long-term results.
Long term results are the accumulation of short terms results and if IF and LC have short term results and are adhered to in the long term, you will get long term results doing them.
Except in the long term LC has no advantage over other woe with the same calorie deficit.
I asked some questions and you completely ignored them. What do you base your statement on?
Low fat has the advantage. Get over it, read and weep
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28193517
"While low-carbohydrate diets have been suggested to partially subvert these processes by increasing energy expenditure and promoting fat loss, our meta-analysis of 32 controlled feeding studies with isocaloric substitution of carbohydrate for fat found that both energy expenditure (26 kcal/d; P <.0001) and fat loss (16 g/d; P <.0001) were greater with lower fat diets. "
3 -
*grabs popcorn*7
-
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »This is the least restrictive method to lose weight.
You are still clearly eating in a calorie deficit to lose weight, there is no defying that fact it comes down to a calorie deficit. Can't lose weight without being in one. Good for you for finding something that worked for you!
There is a big difference between "MUST lose in a calorie deficit" and "can't lose unless you have a calorie deficit". The 1st statement is a fact, then second, not as much so. If the second were true, then no weight loss drugs would ever work and I do think there are some out there that do work, maybe with really bad side effects, but it shows that it can be possible to lose some without the CICO calculated deficits.
Those pills that really do help are amphetamines. They reduce appetite and cause restlessness. CICO.
Don't they also tend to damage the heart? Or am I misremembering?
yes. that's why they had to pull the OG Hydroxicut off shelves, and new Hydroxicut is just caffeine and capsaicine, like every other diet pill.
Although innovative folks with high to moderate risk tolerance can still get all the ingredients.
For the record, I lost 30 lbs in 30 days with the stack that was in the OG Hydroxicut. And kept it off for nearly 2 years.
If it wasn't
1. Risky
2. tested for and expressly prohibited by my employer.
I might consider doing the regimen again. but between the health and legal risk, it's simply not worth it to me.3 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »Math? Not a thing.
Thermodynamics? Not a thing.
Laws of energy conservation? Not a thing.
Gluten-free? You might be on to something there......
If there is more gluconeogenesis doing LC or IF, then thermodynamics demands there be a metabolic advantage doing those things. Any process, including gluconeogensis ins't 100% efficient in energy conversion, so that alone proves that what you eat and possibly when you eat does make a difference.
Look at long-term results.
Long term results are the accumulation of short terms results and if IF and LC have short term results and are adhered to in the long term, you will get long term results doing them.
Yes, and in the long term, the reduced efficiency balances out with the generally lower energy level caused by LC.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 952 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions