Clearly CICO has no bearing on my recent weight loss
Options
Replies
-
Several years ago, a doctor finally discovered that gluten was trashing my body (many clueless doctors couldn't figure out my GI problems - this was before the GF craze.) When I eliminated it from my diet (also several years ago) my weight didn't change much - I was already at goal and I didn't change my calorie intake, only eliminated the gluten. Interestingly, although I didn't drop any weight, I actually DID drop a pant size or two simply because the chronic, massive bloating had vanished! I looked great! But the best part was not being sick all the time (TMI: chronic abdominal pain and puking out both ends is no fun).
I think when people make dietary changes for health reasons they often lose weight because they may be inadvertently dropping their calorie intake when they eliminate certain foods. Then they attribute their weight loss to the food elimination. But CICO is still the standard for weight loss, because, physics, of course.6 -
goldthistime 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.
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.
Been reading about a drug that was developed to treat diabetes but has weight loss properties. It reduces your appetite by imitating GLP-1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaglutide
I think that is the medication marketed in Australia under the brand name Saxenda. Not on PBS for weight loss so quite pricey here.
However, obviously, it does not negate CICO - it reduces appetite and food cravings - hence reduces CI.
( either that or price of it means you can't afford to buy food as well ) *
* joke.
4 -
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.
what I got out of it was that gluconeogenesis was 67% efficient (33% losses). A person eating all the time with carbs will not be doing that much gluconeogenesis whereas the people that eat very low carb or that do IF (say one meal a day) will be doing a lot more dluconeogensis so they will incur more losses for the same caloric intake.16 -
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.
I don't believe the studies main point was that protein increases metabolism but that the lack of carbs and hence the need for gluconeogenesis caused more calories to be burned. IF is also a lack of carbs during the fasting period and although wasn't discussed in the study, should have the same effect.13 -
stanmann571 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.
Yes, and in the long term, the reduced efficiency balances out with the generally lower energy level caused by LC.
So it seems to me you just acknowledged that it does make LC or IF does make a difference at least in the short term.4 -
russelljam08 wrote: »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. "
I'm not a LC person, I'm just discussing weather LC or IF makes a difference or not. I like my carbs and I eat carbs. So no weeping here. The studies are interesting. I would like to look at them sometime if I can find the time.0 -
paperpudding wrote: »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.
CO needs to have a standard definition. Seems like it should be based on calories lost due to energy demands or the body and not due to other factors. Then the other factors can be evaluated.7 -
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.)
Of course people have different BMR levels, that doesn't mean LC or IF don't make a difference and cause more calories to be used. Work is a unit of energy but is usually reserved for mechanical motion. Heat is also energy. Energy isn't burned. Energy transitions from one form to another and some of the energy that is available for work (enthalpy) always decreases with each transition (increase in entropy) if I remember thermodynamics correctly.5 -
I knew a person that once lost 30 pounds while eating whatever he wanted. CICO is a lie, just like his phantom limb pain!
CICO isn't a lie, we all obey thermodynamics, CICO just isn't the whole energy equation. CO really needs a clear definition. Excretion isn't part of the CICO equation but there are some calories lost that way.11 -
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.)
Of course people have different BMR levels, that doesn't mean LC or IF don't make a difference and cause more calories to be used. Work is a unit of energy but is usually reserved for mechanical motion. Heat is also energy. Energy isn't burned. Energy transitions from one form to another and some of the energy that is available for work (enthalpy) always decreases with each transition (increase in entropy) if I remember thermodynamics correctly.
I agree that I phrased that poorly.
The main underlying question, though, is when you say "People who say you can't lose more than CICO predicts will lump those losses to more CO", what do you mean by "more than CICO predicts"? What, or in what way, does CICO predict?I knew a person that once lost 30 pounds while eating whatever he wanted. CICO is a lie, just like his phantom limb pain!
CICO isn't a lie, we all obey thermodynamics, CICO just isn't the whole energy equation. CO really needs a clear definition. Excretion isn't part of the CICO equation but there are some calories lost that way.
I don't know whether there's a precise definition, but calories lost by excretion are clearly either calories out, or never count as calories in (along with other undigested/undigestible material). In practical terms, it doesn't really matter.3 -
Some people with celiacs also have other problems and cannot absorb nutrients like others. Which means those people might be undereating involuntarily by just eating a lot of food their body does not absorb properly. Just another possibility.
edit: oh, just 6 pounds? That's water weight or just a bit of bloating for most. Forgot what I wrote above.
1 -
Well, yes, yirara that is what I meant before - weight loss pills which mean you can't absorb fat or diseases which mean you cant absorb certain foods, eg Crohns disease or coleiac disease.
I would call this reducing calories in - you aren't burning more, you are not absorbing them in the first place.
They go through your digestive system unabsorbed
But, semantics really.1 -
MFP suggests calorie target based on your weight loss rate, not your weight loss goal. Pick a too aggressive goal, and you get the lowest MFP will go.
Could it be that eating enough is what stopped migraines and cravings, improved sleep and mood?
Eating at a moderate deficit, and a balanced diet, is exactly what people in here recommend, every day.
Sticking to a calorie deficit is what makes you lose weight. Eating so little that you can't stick to it, is extremely common, but it does not invalidate CICO.
Do YOU have celiac disease? Keep in mind that restricting foods is not easy in the log run, it just seems so simple in the beginning.4 -
What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.5 -
stanmann571 wrote: »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 MAY cause severe inflammation driving a host of responses from that. If you want a comparison, it needs to be equated for that.
FIFY
If a person is celiac and eats gluten, there is no may, it will. When a person consumes gluten with celiac disease, it attacks their small intestine. So you will have an inflammatory response from it.
Except that celiac is one of thousands of autoimmune conditions. most of which have nothing to do with gluten, and thus your statement was ambiguous.
Finally, having reread her OP, there's no clinical evidence she has celiac... merely a family history.2 -
rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.9 -
paperpudding wrote: »Well, yes, yirara that is what I meant before - weight loss pills which mean you can't absorb fat or diseases which mean you cant absorb certain foods, eg Crohns disease or coleiac disease.
I would call this reducing calories in - you aren't burning more, you are not absorbing them in the first place.
They go through your digest
It is semantics but it matters in these discussions.0 -
Calories In and Calories out. This is a point of massive controversy here, because what way have we of actually knowing for sure our Calories OUT? Unless a person gets appropriate testing to determine this calorie out put. Further, it may not be simply all about the calories if any kind of medical situation is at play.8
-
rheddmobile wrote: »What would be the point of logging if it didn't include your calories and macros? I assumed common sense would lead people to include those metrics in their log. And for ppl who plateau at 6 months or whatever though logging calories, they are either not being accurate or they are not accounting for the fact that the less they weigh, the fewer calories they need, so if they haven't been adjusting their intake accordingly they will notice a decline in weight loss and will eventually see it stop altogether.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim that keto increases metabolism. All I have ever seen is that it curbs appetite and causes the body to burn fat and protein for fuel instead of carbs. It may increase metabolism with increased physical activity, but more than that it changes how the metabolism functions.
Everything short of liposuction is based on a caloric deficit. Different paths to the same goal. CICO is it, barring some disease or condition. Even then CICO is it, the condition may just modify the whole process in some way which would change the requirements for that person.
Highlighted the important bit - I'm a living example of this. While my diabetes was untreated I lost 25 lbs in one month while eating everything I could and feeling like I was starving to death (because I literally was, due to my body's inability to metabolise glucose.)
I was probably taking in 4000 calories a day, and my TDEE, based on my stats and what I needed to eat to maintain when my diabetes was finally diagnosed and treated, was lower than that. So despite eating at a surplus I was losing weight.
Was this a violation of CICO? Well... in one sense yes. But in another sense, no, because the "CI" part just wasn't happening - the calories went in my mouth, sure, but instead of being metabolized and used by my body, they piled up in my blood until they could be filtered out by my kidneys. There's no simple way to measure what my CI was during this time, but it wasn't equal to the calorie value of the food I ate.
CICO is a hard and fast rule, but there are circumstances, such as not being able to digest food properly, which make it difficult to accurately calculate calories in. There are other circumstances such as thyroid problems and medications which affect metabolism which make it difficult to calculate calories out.
Exactly, CI in the mouth isn't the same as CI into fat cells. CO out of a fat cell are not the same as CO into the bloodstream available to do work due to ineficiencies of gluconeogensis. A lot of these disagreements, IMO, are due to not being clear on what me mean.
Those things are in cico. We've told you many times before. Yet you come back and keep saying the same thing as if previous discussions never happened.7 -
Calories In and Calories out. This is a point of massive controversy here, because what way have we of actually knowing for sure our Calories OUT? Unless a person gets appropriate testing to determine this calorie out put. Further, it may not be simply all about the calories if any kind of medical situation is at play.
Surely if there is a medical situation it's still something that affects calories in or calories out, either by meddling with a persons metabolic rate or their ability to absorb certain nutrients.
It's all approximates when it comes to Calories In and Calories Out but you can still get a pretty decent idea of what they are. I know what my Calories Out is for a normal day because I have been able to successfully maintain my weight over periods of time by eating the amount equal to what I burn.4
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
- 951 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions