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 Lumifer View Post
    Let's put it this way. Imagine a theoretical experiment where you want to lose weight (say, go down from 200 lbs to 150 lbs) and I get to control, completely and utterly, your food intake. Can I *make* you lose 50 pounds through nothing but controlling your food intake?
    I'm not interested in your "theoretical experiment", if it is conclusively shown that it doesn't work under real world conditions that people live under. I can't live in your theory. I have to live in the real world. I'm not sure what world you live in.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Lumifer View Post
      Let's put it this way. Imagine a theoretical experiment where you want to lose weight (say, go down from 200 lbs to 150 lbs) and I get to control, completely and utterly, your food intake. Can I *make* you lose 50 pounds through nothing but controlling your food intake?
      You absolutely could. CICO is 100% right, in that starvation ALWAYS leads to "weight" loss. But that weight won't necessarily come from burning fat, and that's the rub. Best example I've seen is the starved to death obese zucker rats (did a cartoon of that on my blog if you're interested)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by AdamK View Post
        It's gratifying to me to have a conversation about this that doesn't turn into a religious battle
        Don't see why it should be a religious battle (other that because 'net religious battles are often fun) :-)

        In any case, there nothing there which contradicts CICO and there's nothing in CICO which contradicts your "black box" theory. CICO is a very crude, physics-based picture from 20,000 feet. It's still true, though. Your "black box" approach is less crude, it's a picture from 10,000 feet, it adds in important details. However it seems to me that it builds on CICO, not denies it.

        Originally posted by AdamK View Post
        But it's not like the body "tells" the mind how much to consume. I mean it does (leptin and all that). But the mind is in many ways irrelevant.
        I want to see how do you put food into your mouth without using your mind :-)

        Originally posted by AdamK View Post
        If you clamp down on the mind -- deafen it to the fetus' cry for more food -- the fetus will still grow at the expense of the rest of the body. The pregnant woman will have less energy to move. She'll get colder. She'll even catabolize her own muscle tissue and organs to feed the child. Any food she DOES eat will be preferentially siphoned to the fetus to help it grow.
        Sure, her body composition will change. But at a certain level of calorie intake (which is, ultimately, controlled by the mind) she will not gain weight.

        Originally posted by AdamK View Post
        "mind control" isn't the answer to any kind of out of control growth on the body, in other words, including obesity.
        Now that is an entirely unsupported (note: unsupported, not unsupportable) assertion which does not necessarily follow out of your "black box" model.

        You approach basically says that there are many ways to control the CICO balance. Some of them depend on modifying the signals of the body while the mind remains "passive". Sure, no problem.

        I suspect your dislike of CICO is based on strawmen, in particular the claim that there is some fixed number of calories that you need to stay under and that's all you need to lose weight. But that's not what CICO says.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by j3nn View Post
          Why does CICO "fail millions"?
          To answer your question: people fail CICO. That's it. If you didn't lose weight "following CICO," it's because you didn't follow CICO. The problem is on the end user's end. CICO is infallible.
          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by eKatherine View Post
            I'm not sure what world you live in.
            I live in the world in which my mind is capable of controlling how much calories do I consume.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by AdamK View Post
              You absolutely could. CICO is 100% right, in that starvation ALWAYS leads to "weight" loss. But that weight won't necessarily come from burning fat, and that's the rub. Best example I've seen is the starved to death obese zucker rats (did a cartoon of that on my blog if you're interested)
              This is where macros and activities come into play.

              1.) Lift heavy.
              2.) Prioritize protein.
              3.) Carbs second.
              4.) Fat last.
              5.) Make your fats as saturated as possible with as little PUFA as possible.
              6.) Smaller caloric deficits are superior for fat loss.

              CICO is for total weight loss. Where that weight comes from depends on diet, exercise and the aggressiveness of your deficit.
              Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by AdamK View Post
                But that weight won't necessarily come from burning fat, and that's the rub.
                I see some goalposts being moved :-) "Losing weight" is a different thing from "burning fat" or "reducing body fat %".

                Comment


                • Here's the problem with CICO. The proponents use it as a prescription, but then define it as a description.

                  If you're using the term "CICO" to describe the first law of Thermodynamics, there's no problem.

                  If you're using it to describe a strategy of weight loss, it's been shown to be a failure over and over again for decades. It confuses cause and effect and pretends dependent variables can be manipulated independently. And people don't live in metabolic wards.

                  The alternative hypothesis/neuroendocrine theory of obesity/black box theory is an explanation that in no way contradicts the former. If your defense of CICO is to re-state the First Law of Thermodynamics, you're defending the former, which needs no defense, not the latter, which is indefensible in light of what we know today about human physiology.
                  The Champagne of Beards

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by eKatherine View Post
                    I'm not interested in your "theoretical experiment", if it is conclusively shown that it doesn't work under real world conditions that people live under. I can't live in your theory. I have to live in the real world. I'm not sure what world you live in.
                    CICO always works under real world conditions when you do it properly.

                    People don't track their calories properly. They underestimate how much they eat. They overestimate their Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE). They don't use the proper foods in food databases. And sometimes the food databases they use are not accurate. These are all problems with the end user, and it takes months of proper experimentation to figure out how to eat and really refine your TDEE. Once mastered, you know to a very high degree of accuracy where you're at - this is what the bodybuilding community does. I am part of communities where literally hundreds of people have done this and know their TDEE within 50-100 calories and can perfectly add and subtract 0.5-1 lb a week effortlessly. Most people are too lazy to put in this kind of effort. They fail CICO, CICO did not fail them.

                    Why are you so vehemently against this? It's absolutely a fact that you cannot lose weight without a calorie deficit. I know it is far more comforting to believe that you can lose weight with unrestricted food intake as long as you keep carbohydrate in check but it is a total lie. If you have ever lost a pound of fat in your life, you did it by undereating your body's caloric needs to maintain its weight.
                    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Lumifer View Post
                      Don't see why it should be a religious battle (other that because 'net religious battles are often fun) :-)

                      In any case, there nothing there which contradicts CICO and there's nothing in CICO which contradicts your "black box" theory. CICO is a very crude, physics-based picture from 20,000 feet. It's still true, though. Your "black box" approach is less crude, it's a picture from 10,000 feet, it adds in important details. However it seems to me that it builds on CICO, not denies it.



                      I want to see how do you put food into your mouth without using your mind :-)



                      Sure, her body composition will change. But at a certain level of calorie intake (which is, ultimately, controlled by the mind) she will not gain weight.



                      Now that is an entirely unsupported (note: unsupported, not unsupportable) assertion which does not necessarily follow out of your "black box" model.

                      You approach basically says that there are many ways to control the CICO balance. Some of them depend on modifying the signals of the body while the mind remains "passive". Sure, no problem.

                      I suspect your dislike of CICO is based on strawmen, in particular the claim that there is some fixed number of calories that you need to stay under and that's all you need to lose weight. But that's not what CICO says.
                      Ha! Well, I actually don't think we're galaxies apart. Unfortunately, I have to do work But I believe if we had like hours to chat about this, we could probably come to -- if not 100% agreement -- then closer than not.

                      Good luck to you and fellow grokkers! We'll all eventually get this sorted out...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                        Here's the problem with CICO. The proponents use it as a prescription, but then define it as a description.

                        If you're using the term "CICO" to describe the first law of Thermodynamics, there's no problem.

                        If you're using it to describe a strategy of weight loss, it's been shown to be a failure over and over again for decades. It confuses cause and effect and pretends dependent variables can be manipulated independently. And people don't live in metabolic wards.

                        The alternative hypothesis/neuroendocrine theory of obesity/black box theory is an explanation that in no way contradicts the former. If your defense of CICO is to re-state the First Law of Thermodynamics, you're defending the former, which needs no defense, not the latter, which is indefensible in light of what we know today about human physiology.
                        There is no problem with CICO. People screw up tracking their calories. That isn't CICO's fault, it's their fault.

                        Pencils never spelled words wrong. Guns never killed people. Cake never made anyone fat. People do these things.
                        Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Lumifer View Post
                          I see some goalposts being moved :-) "Losing weight" is a different thing from "burning fat" or "reducing body fat %".
                          Again, you keep defending Newtonian physics which nobody is challenging. You can control what and how much you eat, but you can't control exactly how many calories you absorb, or how much energy you expend (you can always exercise more, but BMR is outside your control).

                          And you will find it a lot easier to control your food intake if you eat things that encourage proper satiety signaling. And damnably hard if you don't.

                          Telling someone with downregulated BMR who's eating 900 calories a day to eat less and move around more is a crime amongst people intelligent enough to know better. That includes you and Choco.
                          The Champagne of Beards

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                            Here's the problem with CICO. The proponents use it as a prescription, but then define it as a description.

                            If you're using the term "CICO" to describe the first law of Thermodynamics, there's no problem.

                            If you're using it to describe a strategy of weight loss, it's been shown to be a failure over and over again for decades. It confuses cause and effect and pretends dependent variables can be manipulated independently. And people don't live in metabolic wards.

                            The alternative hypothesis/neuroendocrine theory of obesity/black box theory is an explanation that in no way contradicts the former. If your defense of CICO is to re-state the First Law of Thermodynamics, you're defending the former, which needs no defense, not the latter, which is indefensible in light of what we know today about human physiology.
                            Amen, Rich. Keep fighting the good fight

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                              Here's the problem with CICO. ... It confuses cause and effect and pretends dependent variables can be manipulated independently.
                              You keep saying this -- it's not true.

                              CICO says that weight gain or loss (adjusting for water, 30 lbs moustaches, and such) is the result of the imbalance between the intake and the output of energy. If you consume more energy than you spend (cause) you will gain weight (effect). If you spend more energy than you consume (cause) you will lose weight (effect).

                              CICO says nothing, nothing at all about which factors affect the amounts of energy your consume and spend.

                              CICO is not confused about the direction of causality because it makes no claims about what causes the energy imbalance.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                                If you're using it to describe a strategy of weight loss, it's been shown to be a failure over and over again for decades.
                                Originally posted by AdamK View Post
                                Amen, Rich. Keep fighting the good fight
                                Please show me one study - EVER - where people were shown to be in a caloric deficit and did not lose weight, or a study where people were shown to be in a caloric surplus and lost weight. Since it has been shown to be a failure for decades, surely many exist.

                                That statement is a lie.
                                Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X