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 Drumroll View Post
    And why does the cake make you feel hungrier than the steak?

    Oh, it's that tricky bastard insulin coming in to confound the pure calories in, calories out theory!
    Yeah, and that would require thinking. Oh shit.

    Hell I can eat a whole 2000 calorie pizza and be hungry 3hrs later. One explanation is that the body shaves off 20% FIRST and sends that right to fat (triggered by insulin in the white dough). You don't get a say in the matter. So you have 80% of the calories left to use, but almost no nutrients in any of them. Anyhow after the sugar crash you feel like dog poop and want to eat more for more cheap energy...also you want to eat more because you never got your nutrients and your body is confused how it got full yet is still starving, and so on and so forth.

    Thus "calories in / calories out" isn't very useful in explaining the "pizza/cake endless chow-down" scenario.

    It isn't very useful in explaining a lot of scenarios.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
      Gain or loss of mass is defined as the calorie surplus or deficit consumed. But they're dependent variables. The type of calories you eat affects the amount of calories you expend. And the type of expenditure affects the amount you eat. And the type of calories you eat affects the amount you eat (as Choco noted above). They're complex, interrelated figures that are regulated by mechanisms beyond our control and precise understanding.

      So the prescription for weight loss isn't so simple as "eat less, move more." It's eat smarter, move smarter.
      ^ Smart person award April 2013.

      Comment


      • This thread is embarrassing.
        Dark chocolate and coffee, running through my veins...

        Fitocracy Workout Tracker:
        https://www.fitocracy.com/profile/Shadowknight137/?feed
        MFP Food Diary:
        http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/diary/Shadowknight137
        (Date is New Zealand Time UTC+ 12hours)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
          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."
          Peter is smart. His new organization to TEST some of the same theories I posted above is about the most exciting thing happening in nutrition. What else is happening? Everyone else seems to be barking up the wrong tree.

          Plus he has some cool slides, in this one if you invert the change in the American diet since the 1960s, it becomes primal. Again proving my theory "do exactly opposite of what the Americans are doing".

          http://nusi.org/wp-content/uploads/2...6_slide-61.png

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
            Oh, the minute details again, LOL! Well, it also dictates it
            It's not a minute detail though, calories in calories out doesn't dictate anything.

            This cool CICO acronym you guys are using only shows outcome, not WHY. The lazy brains are assuming "move more eat less" forces CICO to decrease fat. But it doesn't. As we've seen with all the crazed Americans running themselves senseless, half-starving, and not getting anywhere. There are other causes at work here.

            Hence why I said in post #1 it would be nice if people stopped saying CICO trying to act smart.

            Because it isn't smart.
            Last edited by KimchiNinja; 04-05-2013, 02:06 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by AdamK View Post
              Hey CICO fans. There are reason why I and so many others are so passionate about the "Alternative Hypothesis."
              ^ A second "smart-person award" has been earned.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by eKatherine View Post

                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.

                .
                All diets have a pitiful success rate long term. Long term low carb success stories are just as rare as long term low fat dieters. Just look at the overweight low carb gurus on the internet.

                Comment


                • Sorry for my catch-up posts, I'm in a different time zone than most of you. But I'm proud to say I made it thru all 25pgs. It was painful but there were actually a few moments of intelligent discussion.

                  I'd like to point out to the CICO fanatics who keep saying "if you starve yourself you will lose weight", that you are kinda wrong. There was that one study with some obese rats (poor guys always get screwed) who they starved, and the rats died FAT! Link anyone? There are 6mo old babies now who are obese! Are you going to say the starving rat is still eating too much? Are you going to say the obese baby needs to work out more?

                  Absurd.

                  Friday night, peace out.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by KimchiNinja View Post
                    I'd like to point out to the CICO fanatics who keep saying "if you starve yourself you will lose weight", that you are kinda wrong. There was that one study with some obese rats (poor guys always get screwed) who they starved, and the rats died FAT!
                    People die of nutrient deficiencies all the time. Half of modern diseases are caused by deficiencies in various vitamins and minerals. What's your point?
                    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
                      People die of nutrient deficiencies all the time. Half of modern diseases are caused by deficiencies in various vitamins and minerals. What's your point?
                      You really don't see how obese rats dying of starvation is a refutation of the CICO strategy of weight loss?
                      The Champagne of Beards

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by KimchiNinja View Post
                        Sorry for my catch-up posts, I'm in a different time zone than most of you. But I'm proud to say I made it thru all 25pgs. It was painful but there were actually a few moments of intelligent discussion.

                        I'd like to point out to the CICO fanatics who keep saying "if you starve yourself you will lose weight", that you are kinda wrong. There was that one study with some obese rats (poor guys always get screwed) who they starved, and the rats died FAT! Link anyone? There are 6mo old babies now who are obese! Are you going to say the starving rat is still eating too much? Are you going to say the obese baby needs to work out more?

                        Absurd.

                        Friday night, peace out.
                        I know of no obese diseased rats. But there was a human staving experiment that didn't fail in producing weight loss. Minnesota Starvation Experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

                        Comment


                        • So if I weigh 150 lbs (I do), and my TDEE is 3500 calories a day(pretty close), I'll simply weigh 0 after 150 days of starvation? Good to know. Nice to know it's that simple.
                          The Champagne of Beards

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                            So if I weigh 150 lbs (I do), and my TDEE is 3500 calories a day(pretty close), I'll simply weigh 0 after 150 days of starvation? Good to know. Nice to know it's that simple.
                            You're assuming 100% of your body weight can be converted into energy. What about water? What about bone? What about all your skin, hair, nails, joints, etc that cannot be broken down? Your entire premise is a fallacy.

                            You won't make it anywhere near 150 days without food, and you'll probably die of a nutritional deficiency before all your stored calories are gone.

                            Why do you keep creating straw men? Why can't you just accept that you can't lost weight without an energy deficit and you can't gain weight without a surplus? That is the very definition of conservation of energy. Why do you hate physics? I don't understand why you have an agenda. Does it make you feel better to think you can eat more without consequences as long as you stick to some convoluted eating plan?
                            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
                              Why do you keep creating straw men? Why can't you just accept that you can't lost weight without an energy deficit and you can't gain weight without a surplus? That is the very definition of conservation of energy. Why do you hate physics? I don't understand why you have an agenda. Does it make you feel better to think you can eat more without consequences as long as you stick to some convoluted eating plan?
                              Show me one time where I said the Law of Conservation of Energy could be violated. You're, once again, proving just how disingenous you are willing to be in order to feel like you won an argument on the internet.

                              What makes me feel better is to eat in a way that normalizes my neuroendocrine satiety signaling. Which causes me to expend more energy than it causes me to eat (in my case, causes me to expend the same as it causes me to eat, since I'm at a relative equilibrium).

                              Why do you deny that CI and CO are dependent variables?
                              The Champagne of Beards

                              Comment


                              • Seems to me that both the CICO camp and the Alternative Theory camp accept that calories matter, and that BMR/RMR is part of the equation. Both would accept, I think, that the rate at which individuals burn calories can vary due to differences in endocrine response, and neurotransmitters like serotonin.

                                Correct me if I am wrong, but my take is that the CICO camp would accept that BMR/RMR can be altered by changing one's pattern of exercise, e.g.: a couch potato who starts working out can effect a higher BMR/RMR. But the CICO camp does not accept that changes to how much energy one burns can be affected through what is eaten (rather than how much), hence a calorie is a calorie and excess caloric intake over waste excreted and physical exertion (including basal metabolism) necessarily is the ONLY way one puts on weight.

                                The Alternative Theory camp says that what is eaten can change the endocrine response and neurotransmitter uptake, so that BMR/RMR is not a fixed entity, or changeable only through non-food lifestyle alterations such as exercise, meaning that CICO calculations involve an entity that is in their description a dependent variable, rather the way octane rating can affect mileage, or putting sugar cubes into the gasoline supply can wreck an engine entirely.

                                The CICO camp would say that what is eaten matters in 2 ways: eating industrial oils and refined sugars and grains are not optimal for health, but do not contribute to overweight except when consumed to excess. The Alternative Theory camp would say that what is eaten matters in another way, by damaging numerous functions of the endocrine system even when not consumed in excess of caloric need, e.g., industrial oils (even if eaten below daily caloric need) can damage insulin receptors and lead to insulin resistance, or someone who already has insulin resistance who consumes refined sugars and grains (even if eaten below daily caloric need) can trigger the secretion of excess insulin that then further damages cells (leading to myriad and usually related "common soil" diseases).

                                Have I mis-stated the position of either camp? I am trying to clarify all this to my own way of thinking without being argumentative or making this any sort of an ad hominem attack on those who hold either camp's view. If possible, can any amendments to my summary be made in a collegial and respectful manner? I find there are many intelligent arguments on both sides of this issue, but often it seems that an apples-to-apples comparison is eschewed so that sidebars and lesser details can further the exchange without resolution.

                                Thanks for your consideration.
                                Last edited by Finnegans Wake; 04-05-2013, 07:15 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X