CICO, It's a math formula
Options
Replies
-
Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.38
-
Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.14 -
This is perfect!1
-
quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
Yep, and he even got that wrong. People don't "lose nearly twice the weight" on the same calories when they modify their macros, and they sure as hell don't store fat in a deficit, but I'm too tired to get into the same old chewed up insulin hypothesis.21 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
OK OK....so yes all Calories defined as a unit of measure having nothing to do with the human body are all equal...my point being that looking at it through that narrow lens is not terribly helpful when trying to understand the macro/micro nutrional value of the calories and the effects they have on the human body and more importantly weight loss. The net effect being that all things being equal, an equal amount of calories with a certain macro content WILL NOT yield the same results/weight loss as the exact same amount of calories with a totally different macro content because of the effects these macros have on the human body and how the body reacts to them. I think most people understand the nuance of what I was getting at but thanks for your correction...it was very helpful and brought much insight to the debate. ;-)24 -
Another way of saying this is: calorically equivalent is not the same thing as metabolically equivalent.10
-
And still, you are incorrect:
https://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
https://www.myoleanfitness.com/evidence-caloric-restriction/
https://rachelwilliamsfitness.com/2017/06/11/debunking-dr-jason-fungs-criticism-of-cico/
https://completehumanperformance.com/2013/07/23/why-calories-count/13 -
Quest4More wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
OK OK....so yes all Calories defined as a unit of measure having nothing to do with the human body are all equal...my point being that looking at it through that narrow lens is not terribly helpful when trying to understand the macro/micro nutrional value of the calories and the effects they have on the human body and more importantly weight loss. The net effect being that all things being equal, an equal amount of calories with a certain macro content WILL NOT yield the same results/weight loss as the exact same amount of calories with a totally different macro content because of the effects these macros have on the human body and how the body reacts to them. I think most people understand the nuance of what I was getting at but thanks for your correction...it was very helpful and brought much insight to the debate. ;-)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you didn't actually read most of the thread. Am I right?11 -
Quest4More wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
OK OK....so yes all Calories defined as a unit of measure having nothing to do with the human body are all equal...my point being that looking at it through that narrow lens is not terribly helpful when trying to understand the macro/micro nutrional value of the calories and the effects they have on the human body and more importantly weight loss. The net effect being that all things being equal, an equal amount of calories with a certain macro content WILL NOT yield the same results/weight loss as the exact same amount of calories with a totally different macro content because of the effects these macros have on the human body and how the body reacts to them. I think most people understand the nuance of what I was getting at but thanks for your correction...it was very helpful and brought much insight to the debate. ;-)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you didn't actually read most of the thread. Am I right?
28 pages and he thinks we need another mansplanation.22 -
Quest4More wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
OK OK....so yes all Calories defined as a unit of measure having nothing to do with the human body are all equal...my point being that looking at it through that narrow lens is not terribly helpful when trying to understand the macro/micro nutrional value of the calories and the effects they have on the human body and more importantly weight loss. The net effect being that all things being equal, an equal amount of calories with a certain macro content WILL NOT yield the same results/weight loss as the exact same amount of calories with a totally different macro content because of the effects these macros have on the human body and how the body reacts to them. I think most people understand the nuance of what I was getting at but thanks for your correction...it was very helpful and brought much insight to the debate. ;-)
Quite a few studies suggest that HCLF and LCHF produce similar weight loss results, too, when the observation lasts long enough to get well past the higher initial water weight loss from LC, as long as protein is held constant as well as calories (because protein has a higher TEF). I don't have the link at hand to a list of said research . . . but it's been posted on numerous threads, and probably somewhere in the 28 pages of this one. Did you read the whole thread?
Certainly different macro composition of one's eating has an effect on nutrition, health, and on satiation/appetite . . . the latter can affect weight loss success through sustainability. But satiation/appetite seems to be a pretty individual thing: Carbs satiate some, but leave others hungry/craving, other influential factors held constant.
12 -
And still, you are incorrect:
https://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
https://www.myoleanfitness.com/evidence-caloric-restriction/
https://rachelwilliamsfitness.com/2017/06/11/debunking-dr-jason-fungs-criticism-of-cico/
https://completehumanperformance.com/2013/07/23/why-calories-count/
Thanks for the links....I always appreciate reading actual science, etc even and especially if it goes against my line of reasoning...always good to keep an open mind!! ;-) I could actually give you why each one of those articles was "wrong" (thats a relative term and subject to my own biases of course) or did not actually address what I was saying but most glaringly I found it humorous when I read this line from your first article:
"In fact, if you truly wanted to keep insulin as low as possible, then you wouldn't eat a high protein diet...you would eat a low protein, low carbohydrate, high fat diet. However, I don't see anybody recommending that." .....Ummmmm, hellllooooo its called the Keto diet and there are literally millions of people including doctors that are "recommending it". LMFAO. ;-)15 -
Quest4More wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
OK OK....so yes all Calories defined as a unit of measure having nothing to do with the human body are all equal...my point being that looking at it through that narrow lens is not terribly helpful when trying to understand the macro/micro nutrional value of the calories and the effects they have on the human body and more importantly weight loss. The net effect being that all things being equal, an equal amount of calories with a certain macro content WILL NOT yield the same results/weight loss as the exact same amount of calories with a totally different macro content because of the effects these macros have on the human body and how the body reacts to them. I think most people understand the nuance of what I was getting at but thanks for your correction...it was very helpful and brought much insight to the debate. ;-)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you didn't actually read most of the thread. Am I right?
28 pages and he thinks we need another mansplanation.
LMAO....sorry I am but a stupid male and unable to read through 28 WHOLE pages without giving my two cents....forgive me? ;-)10 -
-
Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
OK OK....so yes all Calories defined as a unit of measure having nothing to do with the human body are all equal...my point being that looking at it through that narrow lens is not terribly helpful when trying to understand the macro/micro nutrional value of the calories and the effects they have on the human body and more importantly weight loss. The net effect being that all things being equal, an equal amount of calories with a certain macro content WILL NOT yield the same results/weight loss as the exact same amount of calories with a totally different macro content because of the effects these macros have on the human body and how the body reacts to them. I think most people understand the nuance of what I was getting at but thanks for your correction...it was very helpful and brought much insight to the debate. ;-)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you didn't actually read most of the thread. Am I right?
28 pages and he thinks we need another mansplanation.
LMAO....sorry I am but a stupid male and unable to read through 28 WHOLE pages without giving my two cents....forgive me? ;-)
It's not that you gave our 2 cents, it's that everything that you said, especially for the insulin model of obesity, has been refuted multiple times up-thread.14 -
Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
OK OK....so yes all Calories defined as a unit of measure having nothing to do with the human body are all equal...my point being that looking at it through that narrow lens is not terribly helpful when trying to understand the macro/micro nutrional value of the calories and the effects they have on the human body and more importantly weight loss. The net effect being that all things being equal, an equal amount of calories with a certain macro content WILL NOT yield the same results/weight loss as the exact same amount of calories with a totally different macro content because of the effects these macros have on the human body and how the body reacts to them. I think most people understand the nuance of what I was getting at but thanks for your correction...it was very helpful and brought much insight to the debate. ;-)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you didn't actually read most of the thread. Am I right?
28 pages and he thinks we need another mansplanation.
LMAO....sorry I am but a stupid male and unable to read through 28 WHOLE pages without giving my two cents....forgive me? ;-)
It's the fact that you didn't appear to think maybe we'd already hashed this out once or a dozen times.11 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
Yep, and he even got that wrong. People don't "lose nearly twice the weight" on the same calories when they modify their macros, and they sure as hell don't store fat in a deficit, but I'm too tired to get into the same old chewed up insulin hypothesis.
You are twisting my words...I didnt say you would store fat/gain weight in a deficit....I stated that insulin tells the body to store fat.....this is not a hypothesis, its been proven....look at the vast majority of Type 2 diabetes that go on Insulin and eat the same diet....they almost all gain weight. Is that a coincidence? No, its the insulin. Anyone that says hormones like Insulin and Cortisol have nothing to do with how our bodies store fat is just wrong...its been shown time and time again to be true. Get some sleep and when you are less tired look up some studies having to do with hormones and their effects on weight gain/loss. Its pretty interesting stuff. ;-)17 -
Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
OK OK....so yes all Calories defined as a unit of measure having nothing to do with the human body are all equal...my point being that looking at it through that narrow lens is not terribly helpful when trying to understand the macro/micro nutrional value of the calories and the effects they have on the human body and more importantly weight loss. The net effect being that all things being equal, an equal amount of calories with a certain macro content WILL NOT yield the same results/weight loss as the exact same amount of calories with a totally different macro content because of the effects these macros have on the human body and how the body reacts to them. I think most people understand the nuance of what I was getting at but thanks for your correction...it was very helpful and brought much insight to the debate. ;-)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you didn't actually read most of the thread. Am I right?
28 pages and he thinks we need another mansplanation.
LMAO....sorry I am but a stupid male and unable to read through 28 WHOLE pages without giving my two cents....forgive me? ;-)
It's the fact that you didn't appear to think maybe we'd already hashed this out once or a dozen times.
Well, what are the chances that someone would bring it up in 28 pages?8 -
I loved the reddit post linked in one of the articles posted above. Its regarding the Biggest Loser study, and discusses issues with the study that I hadn't read about before...
https://www.reddit.com/r/loseit/comments/4ldkcp/the_nyt_biggest_loser_study_and_the_copehangen/
3 -
annaskiski wrote: »I loved the reddit post linked in one of the articles posted above. Its regarding the Biggest Loser study, and discusses issues with the study that I hadn't read about before...
https://www.reddit.com/r/loseit/comments/4ldkcp/the_nyt_biggest_loser_study_and_the_copehangen/
Yes! I have read that before and found it to be quite interesting....especially the role of hormones in maintaining weight loss once it has been achieved. (talked about in the Copehangen study).8 -
Quest4More wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
Yep, and he even got that wrong. People don't "lose nearly twice the weight" on the same calories when they modify their macros, and they sure as hell don't store fat in a deficit, but I'm too tired to get into the same old chewed up insulin hypothesis.
You are twisting my words...I didnt say you would store fat/gain weight in a deficit....I stated that insulin tells the body to store fat.....this is not a hypothesis, its been proven....look at the vast majority of Type 2 diabetes that go on Insulin and eat the same diet....they almost all gain weight. Is that a coincidence? No, its the insulin. Anyone that says hormones like Insulin and Cortisol have nothing to do with how our bodies store fat is just wrong...its been shown time and time again to be true. Get some sleep and when you are less tired look up some studies having to do with hormones and their effects on weight gain/loss. Its pretty interesting stuff. ;-)
You are getting short answers because, as we've been trying to tell you, this thread has already been over this multiple times. Maybe you should read through some of the thread before insulting people. You would see plenty of research has been done.
Insulin is involved in fat storage. But there's no fat to store if you are not in a surplus.11
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 388 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions