Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Calories in / Calories Out" -- Please Stop the Madness

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

  • Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
    Calling CICO "a dogma" is like claiming that the law of gravitation is "a dogma"!
    No. You're trying to falsely conflate CICO with the 1st law of Thermodynamics.

    Here's Peter Attia's statement of the Alternative Hypothesis: "Obesity is a growth disorder just like any other growth disorder. Specifically, obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation. Fat accumulation is determined not by the balance of calories consumed and expended but by the effect of specific nutrients on the hormonal regulation of fat metabolism. Obesity is a condition where the body prioritizes the storage of fat rather than the utilization of fat."

    The CICO proponents all too often fail to understand what they're arguing against. Give this a shot: Do calories matter? The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D. The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D.
    The Champagne of Beards

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
      Calling CICO "a dogma" is like claiming that the law of gravitation is "a dogma"!
      No. You're trying to falsely conflate CICO with the 1st law of Thermodynamics.

      Here's Peter Attia's statement of the Alternative Hypothesis: "Obesity is a growth disorder just like any other growth disorder. Specifically, obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation. Fat accumulation is determined not by the balance of calories consumed and expended but by the effect of specific nutrients on the hormonal regulation of fat metabolism. Obesity is a condition where the body prioritizes the storage of fat rather than the utilization of fat."

      The CICO proponents all too often fail to understand what they're arguing against. Give this a shot: http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
      The Champagne of Beards

      Comment


      • Unless one of you is in considerably better shape than everyone else, and have attained it with minimal effort, then I don't think anyone's got any right to say everyone else is wrong.
        LOL, except for even then, everyone has a different body.

        Like I think there are some guys here that need never worry about counting calories and it makes sense. A 25 year old guy that cross fits 5 days a week then mountain climbs on the weekend really has nothing to worry about. But that 51 year old woman in menopause that is sedentary with a thyroid issue is going to have to restrict calories in some way/shape or form, whether or not she eats carbs.

        I look at calories as a budget. We all have our own budget. Maybe you make minimum wage, maybe you make six figures. It's a lot harder to manage things on minimum wage than on six figures. And "budget suggestions" for the guy that makes six figures are irrelevant to someone at minimum wage.

        It's probably why weight loss is so hard...no one answer!

        http://maggiesfeast.wordpress.com/
        Check out my blog. Hope to share lots of great recipes and ideas!

        Comment


        • LOL. Do calories matter? Peter Attia's very first sentence is: "In a word, yes." :-)

          But if you want to get back to the source, you can quote Taubes in GCBC.

          Comment


          • I think calories do matter, but I don't think that "eat less, move more" is always the answer. If you have someone who already works out a lot, e.g., someone who does moderate to vigorous workouts for 40-90 minutes six times a week, and then you put them on a low-calorie diet, say 1200 calories per day for a woman of average size. This person would probably start experiencing some degree of thyroid suppression very soon after being placed on such a regimen. And that's going to cause them to not lose weight. And if they ever started eating more again, they may even gain weight very quickly.

            Biological organisms are complex. We're not engines that simply burn fuel. That doesn't mean that calories don't matter, but it also doesn't mean that calories are all that matters. It's just more complicated than that.

            My journal

            Comment


            • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
              No. You're trying to falsely conflate CICO with the 1st law of Thermodynamics.

              Here's Peter Attia's statement of the Alternative Hypothesis: "Obesity is a growth disorder just like any other growth disorder. Specifically, obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation. Fat accumulation is determined not by the balance of calories consumed and expended but by the effect of specific nutrients on the hormonal regulation of fat metabolism. Obesity is a condition where the body prioritizes the storage of fat rather than the utilization of fat."

              The CICO proponents all too often fail to understand what they're arguing against. Give this a shot: Do calories matter? The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D. The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D.
              So what? Attia talks about fat accumulation and bodycomposition, nobody disagrees that you can lose weight and end up skinnyfat on a bad diet without any exercise, but you still lose weight in accordanse to CICO! But what does losing weight really mean according to CICO? It means that you loses calories stored as fat, glycogen or protein from your body! How many calories contain an average body then? Maybe around 200,000 calories, and a calorie deficit of 500 per day will make a person lose 3,500 kcal per week from his body - but it says nothing about where it comes from! If losing fat, well everybody knows that a pound of fat contains around 3,500 kcal. But muscle? One pound contains only around 600 kcal, and the pound of glycogen stored in our bodies gives less than 2000 kcal.

              When losing or gaining weight CICO dictates loss or gain of calories from the body, fluctuations in body water or bodycomposition is irrelevant due to this principle...
              "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


              • Originally posted by Lumifer View Post
                LOL. Do calories matter? Peter Attia's very first sentence is: "In a word, yes." :-)

                But if you want to get back to the source, you can quote Taubes in GCBC.
                Exactly! Of course they matter. Did you read the rest of the link?

                My entire point was that if you define CICO as the First Law of Thermodynamics, it's entirely true (because you're measuring what happened, and the calories are simply a measure of energy).

                But when you tell someone who's spent years trying unsuccessfully to lose weight by eating less and moving more that they're A. lying about their food intake and/or B. lazy, you do them a serious disservice.

                And for the record, I own both Good Calories, Bad Calories and Why We Get Fat (which I've described as a book report on Good Calories, Bad Calories). But neither are in front of me at the moment.
                The Champagne of Beards

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
                  When losing or gaining weight CICO dictates loss or gain of calories from the body, fluctuations in body water or bodycomposition is irrelevant due to this principle...
                  No. CICO measures loss or gain of calories from the body. You've got the horse and the cart reversed.
                  The Champagne of Beards

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by serenity View Post
                    Biological organisms are complex. We're not engines that simply burn fuel. That doesn't mean that calories don't matter, but it also doesn't mean that calories are all that matters. It's just more complicated than that.
                    Beautifully said.
                    The Champagne of Beards

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                      You are eating more food volume but less calories. Whole foods are far less calorically dense than processed foods. You can eat a big steak for the same calories as a piece of cake, the calories will be mostly protein-based (superior for body composition) and you'll stay full for hours in the steak whereas the cake may make you hungrier. It's that simple.
                      Ahhh! but on those diets I wasn't eating cake....... on Weight Watchers I was tracking my points and eating only around 18 to actually be able to lose any weight. Virtually no fat, very low quantity food. Bfst typically a small low fat yogurt, or 1/3 cup of oatmeal with a sprinkling of sugar (never ever did the fake stuff) and a bit of 2% milk, or one slice of white toast with a tsp of jam. Lunch half a slice of toast mostly dry with maybe one scrambled egg on top, or the like. Snack a piece of fruit and dinner about 3oz meat with maybe 1/2 small baked potato and bit of corn. A touch of butter, but got to liking the sprinkled Molly Mc Butter. I did stop losing weight on this and was told I wasn't eating enough, so I added a bit more food and did start to lose again. But this was not sustainable for me and as soon as I reached goal weight I was on my way up again. I am pretty certain I eat way more calories on this, after all the diets I have been on I am well aware of what calories are in things. I now eat things like a stack of homemade chicken wings for lunch with skin of course. Coconut oil bark, ghee on everything. I don't believe from my experience it is that simple. I do admit though that I was very careful for a long time when I started this diet to keep my quantities down by eating slowly and stopping early and only having a snack if I got really hungry.
                      Started Primal June 2012 at 148.5lbs, and 5' 1", reached goal weight in 5 months.
                      Lowest weight 93lbs - too thin. Now stable at around 100lbs much better weight for me at my age.
                      Primal, minus eggs, dairy and a myriad of other allergens.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                        No. CICO measures loss or gain of calories from the body. You've got the horse and the cart reversed.
                        Oh, the minute details again, LOL! Well, it also dictates it in the sense that if I say that I am doing a de facto 7000 calories deficit - then it follows that I must lose 7000 calories from my body and not 4000 - or as some misguided people think; that they even can gain real weight in a calorie deficit(i.e. accumulate fat, protein or glycogen in their bodies that makes more calories than before the diet!) which is absurd! And vice versa, being in a real de facto calorie surplus dictates that you must gain weight, i.e. accumulate more calories in your body...
                        "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


                        • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                          But when you tell someone who's spent years trying unsuccessfully to lose weight by eating less and moving more that they're A. lying about their food intake and/or B. lazy, you do them a serious disservice.
                          Thankfully I'm neither in the diet consulting business, nor in the people judging business.

                          People generally are really bad at estimating what and how much they eat -- lots of studies about that.

                          People generally are lazy, too :-P

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Lumifer View Post
                            Thankfully I'm neither in the diet consulting business, nor in the people judging business.

                            People generally are really bad at estimating what and how much they eat -- lots of studies about that.

                            People generally are lazy, too :-P
                            Peoples' laziness is not explanatory of the rise of obesity in the past several decades. People didn't get lazier, they got fatter (and that very well may have made them lazier). Peoples' inability to count calories isn't the cause of the obesity epidemic either. It's not like everybody was running around weighing 400 lbs until food labeling was required, then we all got skinny except for the few loonies who refused to add up their calorie totals.

                            Telling people they're eating too much and exercising too little when they've made serious efforts to lose weight by CW methods is judgmental.

                            That said, some people might just think it's cool to be a fat disgusting slob. But I don't think that explains the trend.
                            The Champagne of Beards

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                              ...is not explanatory of the rise of obesity in the past several decades
                              We're not talking about explaining the rise of obesity here, so no explanations were offered.

                              Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                              Telling people they're eating too much and exercising too little when they've made serious efforts to lose weight by CW methods is judgmental.
                              Really? Pointing out certain cause-effect relationships is now "judgmental" if someone made a half-assed effort and really wants his gold star for participation?

                              Y'know, you wanted to lose weight, you tried some stuff and it didn't work -- you failed. I'm not interested in assigning blame, but a simple acknowledgement of reality is kinda necessary.

                              Comment


                              • Hey CICO fans. There are reason why I and so many others are so passionate about the "Alternative Hypothesis."

                                It's not just the CICO people can NEVER EVER EVER EVER accurately reflect what the "Alternative Hypothesis" is. That is incredibly frustrating to me. Just once - for f*cking once - can a CICO person ACCURATELY and COMPLETELY summarize the Alternative Hypothesis without chiming in with their 2 cents about how it's wrong?

                                Imagine if Taubes or any other serious CICO critic began every discussion to the effect of "CICO is B.S. and anyone who believes it is an idiot." That wins no fans. Instead, GT and others BEGIN by ACCURATELY REFLECTING why we all believe in CICO. Without attacking it. Just reflecting it. To demonstrate to others that the idea has been properly understood. I challenege a CICO head out there to -- WITHOUT resorting to any kind of attack or editorializing, or mentioning the words "carbs" or "insulin" -- accurately characterize the lipophilia hypothesis.

                                Do it. I dare you.
                                Not a single word of critique or editorializing or ad homineming. I freaking dare you.

                                Why am I and others so heated about this? I'll tell you why:

                                It's not just that CICO always boils down to "suck it up, fatty, and get control of yourself like I've managed to do" -- which is as repugnant as it is fallacious. It's not just that CICO is probably singlehandedly responsible for the obesity epidemic (and thereby for diabetes, cancer, heart disease, go down the list). It's not just that without the removal of CICO, we will NEVER -- and I mean NEVER -- fix the health-care decay that is crippling America and causing countless misery to millions, or convince more than an isolated few people to eat "real food" (whatever the hell that is, btw).

                                It's that CICO condemns millions of people to die and suffer for no reason -- for the love of a logical fallacy that's trivially refuted -- AND it prevents awareness that could solve many other obesity-related problems that likely have nothing to do with carbs or even insulin.

                                See here:

                                4 Very Cool Insights We Can Gain from “Counting the Black Box” (As Opposed to “Counting Calories” or “Counting Carbs”) | Escape From Caloriegate

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X