Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The True Definition of Calories i.e. "Why what you believe is extremist BS"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    Low nutrient diets and foods that lack satiety lead to increased caloric consumption, which leads to weight gain. Again, CICO. This is nothing new, and one of the fundamentals of CICO and why Primal works - whole foods contain more nutrition and satiety per calorie. That's all this is.


    See above. That is EXACTLY what you said - low satiety foods lead to more calorie consumption which leads to more weight gain. That is the perfect definition of CICO. Thanks for agreeing buddy.
    Lol. I'm glad it took 60 something pages of this thread to find out that ChocoTaco has been misdefining CICO this whole time.

    Thread = Waste of Time.

    Before you hold CICO up on an altar, you should be clear what CICO says. Because its not what you say it is.
    Rebooted Body -- Ancestral Health + Modern Psychology | The Rebooted Body Podcast

    Comment


    • I don't know why it's so hard to reconcile issues of food quality with CICO. How about we reduce it to purely scientific terms: If your body experiences an energy excess for any reason, there will be a net gain in energy (body fat or lean mass, depending on the excess). I don't know how anyone can dispute that.

      I would also like to mention that mainstream diet advice does advocate a whole foods diet along with calorie restriction.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Timthetaco View Post
        I don't know why it's so hard to reconcile issues of food quality with CICO. How about we reduce it to purely scientific terms: If your body experiences an energy excess for any reason, there will be a net gain in energy (body fat or lean mass, depending on the excess). I don't know how anyone can dispute that.

        I would also like to mention that mainstream diet advice does advocate a whole foods diet along with calorie restriction.
        Because even though CICO taken a face value does result in weight loss, it doesn't solve anyone's problems. Unless CICO begins to take into account micronutrient density, hormone response, and other factors IT DOESN'T WORK LONG TERM. And that's the problem. CICO, at face value, doesn't address those things and a large percentage of CICO believers pretend they don't matter either.

        Everyone spouting CICO as the end answer is harping on a technicality, not a solution for everyday people. People aren't a math equation and any program that pretends they are will fail them.
        Last edited by The Rebooted Body; 03-12-2013, 08:57 AM.
        Rebooted Body -- Ancestral Health + Modern Psychology | The Rebooted Body Podcast

        Comment


        • Tim, I think it's hard for some to get this because they have tried to reduce their food intake and failed. Therefore, in their mind, they don't believe reducing calories or food intake works.

          Comment


          • Everybody is getting stuck in semantics.

            When someone says CICO doesn't work... what they are usually saying is "eat less and move more" doesn't work. Its not that it would not work in a metabolic ward study where we force you to stay under a certain caloric load, its that it doesn't work out here in the real world. Thats all. Quality of food always counts. If you take CICO in the widest lens possible then you can include reward feedback and food quality. It's just that most people promoting "eat less move more" don't. What people are rejecting is the "gluttony and sloth" theory of obesity.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Timthetaco View Post
              I don't know why it's so hard to reconcile issues of food quality with CICO. How about we reduce it to purely scientific terms: If your body experiences an energy excess for any reason, there will be a net gain in energy (body fat or lean mass, depending on the excess). I don't know how anyone can dispute that.

              I would also like to mention that mainstream diet advice does advocate a whole foods diet along with calorie restriction.
              or body heat
              PaleoMom's Diet Recovery Journal
              http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread82059.html

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Timthetaco View Post
                I don't know why it's so hard to reconcile issues of food quality with CICO. How about we reduce it to purely scientific terms: If your body experiences an energy excess for any reason, there will be a net gain in energy (body fat or lean mass, depending on the excess). I don't know how anyone can dispute that.
                Originally posted by PaleoMom View Post
                or body heat
                Or the subconscious desire to move more. I am pretty sure that below a certain intake, I just have less energy to do stuff, including random, fidgety movement. I don't care enough to buy a BodyBugg, but I suspect it would tell me a lot about calories out.
                50yo, 5'3"
                SW-195
                CW-125, part calorie counting, part transition to primal
                GW- Goals are no longer weight-related

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Kochin View Post
                  Then you have another interesting phenomenon: if you eat too much fat, your body can basically dump some of it. You'd still gain weight, of course, but, unlike sugar, your body seems perfectly able to defecate almost all the fat you eat if you aren't using it, so any weight-gain is slow and minimal, compared to people who eat huge amounts of sugar, who can gain weight faster as the insulin-spike encourages storage and sugar is harder to just "dump" (pardon the pun).

                  Some days I'll eat 200+ grams of fat. If I don't do much that day or the next day, most of it will come out the other end within 48h. So "kcals-in = kcals-out" still technically applies, but the kcals may not truly be going "in" to begin with.
                  This just blew my mind.

                  How does your body poop out excess fat without digesting and storing it?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Kochin View Post
                    Then you have another interesting phenomenon: if you eat too much fat, your body can basically dump some of it. You'd still gain weight, of course, but, unlike sugar, your body seems perfectly able to defecate almost all the fat you eat if you aren't using it, so any weight-gain is slow and minimal, compared to people who eat huge amounts of sugar, who can gain weight faster as the insulin-spike encourages storage and sugar is harder to just "dump" (pardon the pun). Combine with IF to "keep on top" of that small amount of storage and you're no longer in a kcal-surplus, despite eating so much.
                    Some days I'll eat 200+ grams of fat. If I don't do much that day or the next day, most of it will come out the other end within 48h. So "kcals-in = kcals-out" still technically applies, but the kcals may not truly be going "in" to begin with.
                    As far as I was aware, passing excess fat in stools was primarily and indicator of malabsorption, I am not aware of a body mechanism to choose to not absorb fat.
                    But an interesting observation, could this be a contributer to the effect on those that "fail to thrive" on a high fat diet, there are a number of mechanisms involved from stomach acid, pancreatic enzymes, bile salts, microbiota and GI damage like Coeliac, IBS & Leaky gut.
                    "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

                    Comment


                    • Some people are just going to weigh more than others due to body type or body size. So how do we know what we are supposed to weigh?

                      Two of my sisters and I are all about the same height (5'3-4"ish), but our weights and body types vary. One sister is 25 lbs more than me, and even at the end of my pregnancy, I did not reach her weight. But she does not look overweight. She gains weight proportionally and her figure is curvy. Her frame is large. But if you just look at the numbers, she's probably considered overweight. My other sister's frame is closer to mine, but bones are larger. So even when wearing the same size jeans, she weighs a bit more. My sister-in-law is a couple of inches shorter than us at 5'2-3"ish and weighs about 85-90 lbs. Always has her whole life with her very small frame. She has no health problems and all charts would consider her underweight. Sometimes we talk about wanting to weigh X more or X less than we do, but maybe the reason we can't get there is because we aren't meant to be? Maybe this is what makes restricting calories so difficult beyond a certain point. Just wondering out loud here...

                      Comment


                      • I think the healthy weight range gives lots of wiggle room for personal preference. Since if you are losing weight while exercising your body composition is changing, you really can't know until you are happy with what you see that's you've reached your goal, provided of course you don't have a warped body image.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Rebooted Body View Post
                          Lol. I'm glad it took 60 something pages of this thread to find out that ChocoTaco has been misdefining CICO this whole time.

                          Thread = Waste of Time.

                          Before you hold CICO up on an altar, you should be clear what CICO says. Because its not what you say it is.
                          What are you talking about? CICO specifically says:
                          Weight loss: CI<CO
                          Weight gain: CI>CO
                          Maintenance: CI=CO

                          That is the ONLY definition. Stop trying to pervert things to suit your agenda. Take your logical fallacies, trolling and outright lies somewhere else.
                          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BestBetter View Post
                            This just blew my mind.

                            How does your body poop out excess fat without digesting and storing it?
                            The only poop being excreted was in that post. Total lies. There will be no evidence posted proving that because it doesn't exist. This, along with many other insulin fairy tales, is why the low carb movement is the laughing stock of the health and fitness community, and it undermines the true meaning of paleo.
                            Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                              What are you talking about? CICO specifically says:
                              Weight loss: CI<CO
                              Weight gain: CI>CO
                              Maintenance: CI=CO

                              That is the ONLY definition.
                              That's not quite the same as this:

                              Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
                              Low nutrient diets and foods that lack satiety lead to increased caloric consumption, which leads to weight gain. Again, CICO. This is nothing new, and one of the fundamentals of CICO and why Primal works - whole foods contain more nutrition and satiety per calorie. That's all this is.
                              See, the first quote pretends that all calories are equal. Interchangeable. With the implication being that if people are overweight it's their own damned fault because they lack willpower and are choosing to shove food in their pie-hole.

                              The second one acknowledges that the non-calorie nutrients that come bundled with the calorie are important, and that different calories have different satiety levels. With the implication that it's easier to lose weight when you DON'T behave as if 'a calorie is a calorie'.
                              Last edited by magicmerl; 03-12-2013, 09:04 PM.
                              Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

                              Griff's cholesterol primer
                              5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
                              Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
                              TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
                              bloodorchid is always right

                              Comment


                              • I hate this thread.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X