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
    I live in the world in which my mind is capable of controlling how much calories do I consume.
    Wait a minute. You told me your evidence of proof was that if one person incarcerated another person and held them against their will, starving them for a fixed period of time, that would be "proof" that it "works" in the real world. Which describes a laboratory experiment, not the real world.

    The fact that your n=1 has failed to help hundreds of millions of Americans gain control over their weight problems is hardly any sort of "proof" that it works for any more than a handful.

    It's pure fat-shaming. You love it because it makes you feel superior to all those people out there who couldn't make it work, when in all likelihood you're a person who has never had a real weight problem. Your only problem is that you like to feel superior to other people and seek out rationalizations for telling yourself how everybody but you is a failure.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
      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).
      I can control the upper limit on the calories I consume easily enough. I can dynamically adjust that upper limit based on actual weight changes. I don't need to precisely know my energy balance, I just need to make sure its sign is correct.

      Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
      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.
      Heh. Hey, where did those goalposts go? We're now talking about "easier" :-)

      Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
      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.
      Oh, cool :-) Looks like I got called an intelligent criminal :-D

      But come on, compared to AdamK's claims about how CICO kills millions of people and tortures millions more, your example is kinda underwhelming. You need to put more fire into it, more zing! Let's bring in widows and orphans! Won't someone please think of the children! ENEMIES OF THE STATE!!eleven!

      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.
        Truth

        Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
        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.
        Straw man argument obviously.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by eKatherine View Post
          Wait a minute. You told me your evidence of proof was that if one person incarcerated another person and held them against their will, starving them for a fixed period of time, that would be "proof" that it "works" in the real world. Which describes a laboratory experiment, not the real world.
          No, that's not what I said. I said that starving someone IS GUARANTEED to bring their weight down. In reality. The usual, physics-based reality.

          I haven't said anything about what might be the most useful approach to reduce obesity in the populations of the developed countries.

          Originally posted by eKatherine View Post
          It's pure fat-shaming.
          How come? I'm essentially applying basic physics. I am saying nothing about moral qualities, about willpower, about what's socially acceptable and what not, about what weight someone *should* be, or anything similar to that. Sure there are people who'll say that so-and-so is a fat slob because of the deadly sins of gluttony and sloth, but that's not me and CICO has nothing to do with it either.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Lumifer View Post
            How come? I'm essentially applying basic physics. I am saying nothing about moral qualities, about willpower, about what's socially acceptable and what not, about what weight someone *should* be, or anything similar to that. Sure there are people who'll say that so-and-so is a fat slob because of the deadly sins of gluttony and sloth, but that's not me and CICO has nothing to do with it either.
            And trying to apply "basic physics" to the human body whose complex biochemical processes are controlled by enzymes and hormones is why you are wrong.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
              Please show me one study - EVER
              Choco- if I completely drain my glycogen stores, Go to bed, Wake up, Eat 2500 calories of carbs and huge glass of water, Go to bed, Wake up and weigh myself, will I weigh more or less if I followed the same routine, except ate 2500 calories of fat and protein?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 0Angel0 View Post
                And trying to apply "basic physics" to the human body whose complex biochemical processes are controlled by enzymes and hormones is why you are wrong.
                Exactly correct

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Lumifer View Post
                  Huh? How's telling someone to eat less is "putting more blame on her"?

                  If she wants to stop growing fatter she'll have to do something, change something in her life. Eating less and moving more sounds like an excellent start.

                  For me, the "do something" was to fire doctor after doctor until one listened and was willing to increase my thyroid medications. After getting optimal levels of medication (took almost 10 years) it took over six month for my body to heal from the lack of hormones before the weight started coming off slowly.

                  With optimal hormones I lost 50+ lbs. I kept the weight off for 3+years. Then, in mid 2012, the pounds started coming back. Blood tests showed low hormone levels. An increase in meds has those gained lbs slowly departing.

                  So, in my world CICO, when thought of as eat less, move more without looking at hormones is utter BS.

                  Comment


                  • CICO doesn't work because the calories we put into our mouth from the external environment does not translate as the same energy that goes into each of our individual cells.

                    Each and every individual are different and each of their respect cells require multi-cofactors for caloric break down, metabolism, absorption etc.

                    In physics....in a controlled, closed scientific system where the equation is balanced and equilibrium is achieved then the 1st law of thermodynamics is observed.

                    Unfortunately, human physiology, human biology, human metabolism, is not perfectly controlled, is not perfectly balanced, is not perfectly efficient....etc.

                    Comment


                    • Until somebody can derive the formula for the "calories OUT" half of the CICO equation and prove that it is correct, this argument is moot.
                      5'0" female, 45 years old. Started Primal October 31, 2011, at a skinny fat 111.5 lbs. Low weight: 99.5 lb on a fast. Gained back to 115(!) on SAD chocolate, potato chips, and stress. Currently 111.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                        Straw man argument obviously.
                        You don't know what a straw man is I see.
                        Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Primal Bill View Post
                          Choco- if I completely drain my glycogen stores, Go to bed, Wake up, Eat 2500 calories of carbs and huge glass of water, Go to bed, Wake up and weigh myself, will I weigh more or less if I followed the same routine, except ate 2500 calories of fat and protein?
                          Depends what the weight of the meal you ate is. The only difference will be the weight of the food in your stomach. If you pee and take a crap, you'll weigh the same.
                          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                          Comment


                          • The Energy Balance Equation | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald
                            "The problem with quoting someone on the Internet is, you never know if it's legit" - Abraham Lincoln

                            Comment


                            • Ok the reason we all frequent this site is so we can throw high fives about when we do it as grok would've done it, right?

                              Maybe not everybody, but what I'm saying is a great many insights can be gained from discovering how our bodies over came the environmental influences it faced on a daily basis over the period of a few million years. The reason this is so pertinent is that although we believe we are far removed from those millions of years we are in fact a direct copy of it.

                              With that sitting in our minds. lets look at CICO. The CICO theory of body composition and any other alternative theories have only existed for a somewhere within 100 years, an extremely small amount of time considering how long this body of ours has been doing its own "body composition" for.

                              For 1,999,900 years, our bodies didn't have books or the internet or even scientists to help us decipher the best way of eating. In fact it has nothing to do with the best way of eating, there was no choice, no deciding on low carbs or CICO or alternative theory or anything. For that length of time our bodies have adjusted themselves (evolved) to the food that was available and when it was available, our bodies had to deal with extreme calorie deficiencies and surpluses, deal with extremely variable amounts of macro's, deal with variable times and meal sizes, all on a daily basis.

                              After I reread the above paragraph I came across a thought, maybe our bodies are just doing today what they've been doing for millions of years; adjusting themselves (getting fat) to the food that is available (all kinds) and when it is available (all the time).

                              A good analogy for this thread is:
                              On one side we have bunch of physicists (CICO theory), on the other we have a bunch of endocrinologists (Hormone/insulin theory). Both telling each other and us (with valid points) for what the body needs. My question is: Why don't we ask the body what it needs? why don't we look at how our own bodies have been doing it for millions of years? Maybe our bodies are experts in their own composition, after all our bodies have been studying our diet for millions of years.

                              So the next question is, what does the experts (our bodies) want? this is what I came up with quickly:
                              What do the experts (our own bodies) want us to eat? whole foods very much like that was available for millions of years, I think Mark Sisson has a good list that is a fair representation of these foods. How do the experts (our bodies) want us to eat? with great variance and inconsistency like they have been dealing with for millions of years, im not sure how we all can apply that to modern day life, so I've started a thread that tries to further the discussion, have a look.

                              Applying fitness principles to your diet.

                              In summary maybe ALL the scientists are wrong, yes thats the endocrinologists and the physicists (probably the reason why non scientists like Mark Sisson are making the most ground in overcoming obesity) as their view is too narrow to cover the subject at hand. Maybe looking at where we have come from will provide great inspiration for where we should go.
                              A little primal gem - My Success Story
                              Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

                              Comment


                              • Repost below for relevance.

                                Oh dear, well I made it thru pg15 of this "discussion forum" thread and had to stop, because after 15pgs of "discussion", there were only three intelligent posts discussing the topic...and one of them was mine.

                                The problem with the "eat less, exercise more" folk wisdom, aside from the fact that it doesn't work and doesn't explain many observations, is that it a lazy way to dismiss all other possibilities. Well the ocean exists cause a lot of water is in it. Okay how did the water get there? Oh shut up KimchiNinja, we don't like to think about that.

                                Below I disaggregated the calories in / calories out formula. If the original formula holds, then the disaggregation also necessarily holds. The disaggregation makes it much more complex, you change one variable and one or more other variables must change. But it's not obvious which are changing, and probably not the ones people would think (if you believe people think)...

                                Originally posted by KimchiNinja View Post
                                Well, from reading all the posts it sounds like the majority of people even on a paleo forum, still believe that it's "calories in - calories out" driving fat accumulation. That's interesting and it does surprise me. Also given 8pgs in a day it seems like it gets people worked up, especially if they feel their "science" has been violated.

                                If fat is NOT directly caused by [energy in] > [energy out] that does NOT necessarily violate the laws of nature, by the way. For example:

                                [Ei] - [Eo] = [WC (M+F)]

                                Ei - energy in
                                Eo = energy out (update: we could split this into base rate and exercise)
                                WC = weight change
                                M = muscle change
                                F = fat change

                                [WC (M+F down)] = [Ei] - [Eo up]
                                ^ In this explanation fat mass decreases due to less insulin secretion, energy in turn increases; which people experience in a ketogenic state. Fat loss occurs even though calories have not decreased.

                                [WC (M+F up)] = [Ei] - [Eo down]
                                ^ Explained as fat going up (because you're eating twinkies and coke all day) and in turn you're energy out goes down. You feel more sedentary because even though you are eating the same energy your body is grabbing the first 10% and sending to fat storage, therefore your energy must decrease. The body is prioritizing in this example.

                                [WC (M+F down)] = [Ei down] - [Eo]
                                ^ A formula that represents a common theory -- that people lose weight eating "atkins" because the food fills them up and they eat less. But think of it reversed; fat is decreasing while eating this way, and that is driving the urge to eat less, the eating less is not driving the fat loss.

                                [WC (M up+F down)] = [Ei up] - [Eo up]
                                ^ Calories actually increase (from fat and protein) yet fat loss occurs due to less processed carbs, which releases energy (Eo), plus more release of energy from the gym, and muscle increases. Weight stays neutral. I've experienced this, while the laws of nature are preserved it is false to say I increased exercise while decreasing calories.

                                [Ei down] - [Eo down] = [WC (M+F) no/small change]
                                ^ What many people experience on calorie restriction, reducing food reduces energy. In turn no change to weight, or small short-term change to weight, followed by becoming fatter. We know starving rats doesn't necessarily make them thin, you can reduce Ei and they will remain fat. We know starving/malnourished people aren't necessarily thin either, which would seem to disprove decreasing Ei must decrease fat mass.

                                So there are many of possible explanations to explore, beyond the classic "eat less exercise more" (which hasn't worked). The original formula is too simplistic and says nothing at all. But if your mind is not locked into "the world must be flat" you are going to ignore everything nature is telling you to the contrary.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X