Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Storing fat WITHOUT insulin - ASP

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
    CICO is of course a simplification compared to reality, as all science, and calories is anyway only a measurement of energy in food, but it helps in making a plan for weight loss! Try this for your next weight loss; First you make a diet setup for everything that you will be eating for a week to maintain your weight - not losing and not gaining! Then you take out 20% of the food from your diet measured in calories and see what happens for the next four weeks or so, and very probably you will lose weight. When stalling you subtract another 10 % of your food measured in calories etc. And so you continue until reaching your ideal weight! Yes, it’s really that simple, but then comes other things into the lives of the dieters; distractions, temptations, travelling, fear of losing lean mass etc. that mess up the original plan...
    That sounds like a perfect formula for slowing your metabolism down to a halt and becoming one of the "How come I'm not losing weight on 950 calories a day" posters. Please don't take this advice, people.
    The Champagne of Beards

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
      OMG DEPENDENT VARIABLES!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS



      It's not whether you're expending more than your taking in that's interesting. If you're losing weight (other than water weight), you are. It's the question of why that's actually interesting/worth discussing.

      More gold from P. Attia:
      Do calories matter? The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D. The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D.

      Right! I'm pretty sure I still follow the laws of thermodynamics, its just that my "calories out" have become much more complicated than simply increased exercise...
      "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by itchy166 View Post
        I love how all the arm-chair experts pretend that they know EXACTLY the reason for fat-loss and fat-gain, and KNOW without a doubt that they are correct for every person - all the time. CI/CO is a horribly simple oversimplification. If you really had all the answers, why aren't you tapping into the billion dollar weight-loss industry instead of hanging out in a chat-room?

        I keep upping my food intake, stay in ketosis as much as I can (because I FEEL better when I do), IF when I have to, and continue to lose weight. Yesterday I ate 3328 calories. This is typical for me since going Paleo, and I am down 16lbs in 65 days. Actually, I've increased calories from the 3000-3100 range to the 3200-3300 range over the last week. A week that I've dropped another 2lbs.

        I understand that my results are not typical, but no, CI/CO doesn't explain my experience at all. (Actually, if CI/CO worked for me, i should be UP weight over the last 9 weeks, as I've actually upped food intake drastically over this period).

        CI/CO is a good starting point for many people I agree wholeheartedly, but it is not the whole story by any means.
        Couldn't agree more. It's tiring to read the regurgitated spew of the most common current theories presented as if it is a fact. Or even worse as if it is an original thought.

        And like you, I see what I believe to be true in some of the long sermons, but to think that you have all the answers is a clear sign of ignorance or at least a lack of creativity.
        Some of you may die, but that is a risk I'm willing to take.

        Comment


        • #34
          Personally - I honestly do love all the arm-chair experts. Sometimes it makes me roll my eyes, but the majority of the time it makes me think about things in other ways that may or may not be relevant to me at that time.
          Most people discuss things based on their life experiences. Chat rooms allow people from all over the place to come together and throw ideas around.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
            That sounds like a perfect formula for slowing your metabolism down to a halt and becoming one of the "How come I'm not losing weight on 950 calories a day" posters. Please don't take this advice, people.
            Metabolic slowdown is overhyped and is not a problem for people that have enough bodyfat to lose. Most people that think they are consuming 950 kcal and not losing weight, are probably consuming much more! Studies made on selfreporting related to weightloss shows that people tend to underreport what they are eating with 35% on average...
            "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

            - Schopenhauer

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
              Metabolic slowdown is overhyped and is not a problem for people that have enough bodyfat to lose.
              You're putting the cart before the horse, my man. How did those people obtain the bodyfat?

              The Black Box – the REAL thing | Escape From Caloriegate
              The Champagne of Beards

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Black Timber View Post
                Couldn't agree more. It's tiring to read the regurgitated spew of the most common current theories presented as if it is a fact. Or even worse as if it is an original thought.

                And like you, I see what I believe to be true in some of the long sermons, but to think that you have all the answers is a clear sign of ignorance or at least a lack of creativity.

                The part that irks me - I don't dismiss the experience of others, and I assume that what they write here is an accurate description of that experience.

                I fully understand that some don't like ketosis, and that some have had bad experiences with it. If high carb works for you - perfect!!! Please accept that low carb works for me, and that I just might not fit into your dogma.

                As RichMahogany is saying, wouldn't it be more helpful to ask why this has been my experience than to dismiss it altogether?
                "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                  You're putting the cart before the horse, my man. How did those people obtain the bodyfat?
                  The Black Box – the REAL thing | Escape From Caloriegate
                  Good grief! - You are coming up with a paper of valueless internet bullshit again, as usual I dare say! Did nobody teach you how to critically evaluate your sources? ...
                  "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

                  - Schopenhauer

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by itchy166 View Post
                    As RichMahogany is saying, wouldn't it be more helpful to ask why this has been my experience than to dismiss it altogether?
                    Well, at least it's interesting. Why has this been your experience? Is it because your body is regaining lost insulin sensitivity? If so, why is it doing that? Because you're producing less insulin, or because the oxidized PUFA's you likely cut out of your diet were wreaking havoc via a mechanism we (or at least I) don't yet understand? I think those are both plausible ideas and worthy of exploring.

                    Maybe it's because ketosis is a metabolically advantageous state. Under CICO dogma, there's no such thing. If you're losing weight, you have to be eating less and/or moving around more. Are you overreporting your calories and/or underreporting your activity, as Gorbag would accuse you? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean it's not a plausible explanation.

                    The point is that of course, it's not, as some claim, the only explanation. It only becomes the only explanation to call you a liar if you assume (or prove?) that metabolism is fixed. I'm certainly not of that school of thought, it belies the evidence I've come across as well as what my personal experiences suggest.
                    The Champagne of Beards

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
                      Good grief! - You are coming up with a paper of valueless internet bullshit again, as usual I dare say! Did nobody teach you how to critically evaluate your sources? ...
                      You can't attack the argument, so you attack the source (OMG Internetz) and me personally? Are you going to call me a troll and promise to put me on your ignore list again? Or do you want to actually have a discussion about the matter at hand like gentlemen rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks, sir?
                      The Champagne of Beards

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                        You can't attack the argument, so you attack the source (OMG Internetz) and me personally? Are you going to call me a troll and promise to put me on your ignore list again? Or do you want to actually have a discussion about the matter at hand like gentlemen rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks, sir?
                        You made an argument, where, when? When became posting a link to a internet paper an argument??? I wasted ten minutes of my life reading through that valueless piece of misinformation...
                        "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

                        - Schopenhauer

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
                          You made an argument, where, when? When became posting a link to a internet paper an argument??? I wasted ten minutes of my life reading through that valueless piece of misinformation...
                          And apparently the answer to my question about whether you want to debate or discuss the issue on its merits is a clear and resounding "no."
                          The Champagne of Beards

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            CI/CO says I need 3500 calorie deficit to lose one pound of fat.

                            How many calories does it take to gain one pound of muscle mass? A pound of protein is about 1555 calories. So 1555kcal?

                            Oh wait, I have to exercise to build muscle. How many calories worth of exercise does it take to build one pound of muscle? Oh, it varies does it?

                            So gaining one pound of muscle varies with diet, exercise, level of conditioning, genetics, etc, but gaining or losing one pound of fat is fixed to a simple formula?
                            "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by itchy166 View Post
                              CI/CO says I need 3500 calorie deficit to lose one pound of fat.
                              No it doesn't. CICO says that there is about 3500 calories in a pound of body fat. How are you measuring your fat loss? With a scale? Well, there's a problem.

                              When you lose weight, you lose a mix of fat, lean tissue and water. Losing a pound of fat is going to translate into more than a pound of weight loss if you're on a constant deficit because you will lose some percentage of lean mass in the process, which will fluctuate based on:

                              a.) The aggressiveness of your deficit - larger calorie deficits will translate into more lean tissue loss.
                              b.) The method you lost the fat - someone doing chronic cardio to lose that fat likely lost more muscle in the process.
                              c.) Your weight training activity - lifting weights on a deficit will help preserve more lean mass.
                              d.) Your own genetics - some people store fat more efficiently than others, some release it more easily than others.
                              e.) How much water weight do you store per pound of fat? This could depend on so many factors!

                              Originally posted by itchy166 View Post
                              How many calories does it take to gain one pound of muscle mass? A pound of protein is about 1555 calories. So 1555kcal?

                              Oh wait, I have to exercise to build muscle. How many calories worth of exercise does it take to build one pound of muscle? Oh, it varies does it?

                              So gaining one pound of muscle varies with diet, exercise, level of conditioning, genetics, etc, but gaining or losing one pound of fat is fixed to a simple formula?
                              And here it goes, round and round. While you cannot simultaneously build muscle and lose fat in an instant, you can do it over a period of weeks or months. Mild overeating centered around heavy weight training, followed by mild undereating centered around being sedentary or light cardiovascular exercise, is a good way to make sure you are losing mostly fat at times of energy deficits and gaining mostly muscle at times of energy surpluses.

                              I weigh about 10 lbs less than when I started my Primal journey over 2 years ago, yet I can benchpress 40 lbs more, I can deadlift 150 lbs more and squat 50 lbs more. Macro composition plays a role in body composition, nutrient timings play a role in body composition, the aggressiveness of calorie surpluses and deficits affect where our gains and losses in fat mass and lean mass come from, we miscalculate our TDEE with generalized formulas, we misinterpret how many calories we actually take in and we do crazy things like starvation diet and ruin our metabolic rate, but CICO is always perfect. The problem is with the individual because most people just don't understand how to lose weight properly.
                              Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                                Well, at least it's interesting. Why has this been your experience? Is it because your body is regaining lost insulin sensitivity? If so, why is it doing that? Because you're producing less insulin, or because the oxidized PUFA's you likely cut out of your diet were wreaking havoc via a mechanism we (or at least I) don't yet understand? I think those are both plausible ideas and worthy of exploring.
                                Neither. It's not necessary to restore insulin sensitivity to lose weight, and adopting a ketogenic diet doesn't necessarily restore insulin sensitivity. But losing weight can help to restore insulin sensitivity by reducing fat in the pancreas.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X