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 RichMahogany View Post
    But for populations of live, actual humans running around in the actual, real world, I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't agree that the latter is more likely to have a widespread positive effect.
    For populations of live, actual humans I don't know. I suspect different subgroups would find different methods working better for them.

    The experience of the past 40 years has shown that NOTHING works well enough to make large chunks of population lose weight easily.

    Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Now, tell me if we disagree
    We disagree on the meaning of the expression "CICO" and what it implies :-) I don't think we're that far apart on actual human physiology.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Lumifer View Post

      We disagree on the meaning of the expression "CICO" and what it implies :-) I don't think we're that far apart on actual human physiology.
      Can we still be friends? Do you want to do karate in the garage?
      The Champagne of Beards

      Comment


      • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
        Can we still be friends? Do you want to do karate in the garage?
        Tai Chi, please :-)

        Comment


        • Hi CICO-ers and Alt-Hyp-ers alike,

          Greetings and good morning.

          So FYI, I drew up a little cartoon about the rats that starved to death obese (so much for CICO for them) here. Check it out. Enjoy the funny!

          Also, I have a quick N=1 experiment that could solve this whole situation. Someone from Team CICO who is passionate that "a calorie is a calorie" should go on a calorie restricted, mostly liquid sucrose diet for 3 months. Exercise as much as you want. Keep calories "low." Do whatever magic you want. But make sure to consume mostly liquid sucrose - like 70% of calories. That's way above and beyond what the Twinkie Diet guy (Mark Haub - actually a very nice dude - we've spoken) did in his little n=1 a few years back.

          The reason this would be helpful is that it would effectively separate the two hypotheses. Because when you cut calories (on any normal diet), you lower carbs/improve carbs and thereby secrete less insulin (among other things). Even Haub's Twinkie Diet could be seen as a poor man's version of a lower/better carb/insulin diet, as Tom Naughton pointed out on his blog about that n=1.

          The Mountain Dew Diet, on the other hand, (what I'm proposing) would absolutely lead to increased insulin secretion but decreased calorie consumption. It would be much more orthogonal. You'd have to track cals carefully, of course!

          So that's my challenge. "Do the Dew" for 3 months -- 70-80% of calories from liquid sugar and keep calories LOW -- and see whether you gain or lose fat.

          I'd bet you'd gain serious fat, even if you forced yourself to go to the gym AND starved yourself, because cals would be shunted into the fat tissue no matter what. So your BMR would plunge (you'd have no energy) and you'd start to catabolize muscle and organ tissue to meet the energy deficit instead of fat. but that's just my guess.

          Okay, I can't promise to respond more today b/c I gots shizzle to do, but I do enjoy seeing people engage with these ideas. And I have faith that everyone here just wants to see positive change in the world and that we WILL (collectively, somehow) eventually reach a detente.

          Meow,

          Adam

          Comment


          • Low carb is a tool, a metabolic hack. It's not much different than the potato hack: both establish satiety through dietary manipulation which tends to initially create a higher rate of compliance; both easily create a deficit if you eat less than you expend (see first point); both make you rapidly lose and keep off water and glycogen weight, and both limit a large number of foods to eat, subsequently taking essential nutrients out of the equation which often have to be supplemented. Ultimately, these hacks and other like them lead to the same high rate of failure due to noncompliance. The one common factor all weight loss diets have is: CICO. You can't deny this. You can manipulate it, hack it, but the truth is evident no matter how much mysticism you want to apply to certain theories. Sorry, guys, your wizards aren't as powerful and knowing as legends say. They're mostly trying to profit off of recreating the wheel of thermal dynamics. They're still selling round objects, though, even if the performance might seem magical and unbreakable at first.
            | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

            “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

            Comment


            • Originally posted by j3nn View Post
              Low carb is a tool, a metabolic hack.
              with you so far!
              Originally posted by j3nn View Post
              It's not much different than the potato hack
              It's completely different than the potato hack. Are you even remotely serious? Comparing eating a single food with avoiding an unnecessary macronutrient?

              Originally posted by j3nn View Post
              both establish satiety through dietary manipulation which tends to initially create a higher rate of compliance; both easily create a deficit if you eat less than you expend (see first point); both make you rapidly lose and keep off water and glycogen weight, and both limit a large number of foods to eat, subsequently taking essential nutrients out of the equation which often have to be supplemented.
              Which essential nutrients exactly have to be supplemented on low carbohydrate diets?

              Originally posted by j3nn View Post
              Ultimately, these hacks and other like them lead to the same high rate of failure due to noncompliance.
              Or, in the case of the potatoes, death...

              Originally posted by j3nn View Post
              The one common factor all weight loss diets have is: CICO.
              Have you read any of the entire 29 pages of discussion here?

              Originally posted by j3nn View Post
              You can't deny this. You can manipulate it, hack it, but the truth is evident no matter how much mysticism you want to apply to certain theories.
              You clearly didn't read this thread at all..

              Originally posted by j3nn View Post
              Sorry, guys, your wizards aren't as powerful and knowing as legends say. They're mostly trying to profit off of recreating the wheel of thermal dynamics.
              Yup. You definitely didn't read the thread at all.

              Originally posted by j3nn View Post
              They're still selling round objects, though, even if the performance might seem magical and unbreakable at first.
              Who's arguing magic? Strike 3 on having read the thread before commenting.
              The Champagne of Beards

              Comment


              • Originally posted by AdamK View Post
                Hi CICO-ers and Alt-Hyp-ers alike,

                Greetings and good morning.

                So FYI, I drew up a little cartoon about the rats that starved to death obese (so much for CICO for them) here. Check it out. Enjoy the funny!

                Also, I have a quick N=1 experiment that could solve this whole situation. Someone from Team CICO who is passionate that "a calorie is a calorie" should go on a calorie restricted, mostly liquid sucrose diet for 3 months. Exercise as much as you want. Keep calories "low." Do whatever magic you want. But make sure to consume mostly liquid sucrose - like 70% of calories. That's way above and beyond what the Twinkie Diet guy (Mark Haub - actually a very nice dude - we've spoken) did in his little n=1 a few years back.

                The reason this would be helpful is that it would effectively separate the two hypotheses. Because when you cut calories (on any normal diet), you lower carbs/improve carbs and thereby secrete less insulin (among other things). Even Haub's Twinkie Diet could be seen as a poor man's version of a lower/better carb/insulin diet, as Tom Naughton pointed out on his blog about that n=1.

                The Mountain Dew Diet, on the other hand, (what I'm proposing) would absolutely lead to increased insulin secretion but decreased calorie consumption. It would be much more orthogonal. You'd have to track cals carefully, of course!

                So that's my challenge. "Do the Dew" for 3 months -- 70-80% of calories from liquid sugar and keep calories LOW -- and see whether you gain or lose fat.

                I'd bet you'd gain serious fat, even if you forced yourself to go to the gym AND starved yourself, because cals would be shunted into the fat tissue no matter what. So your BMR would plunge (you'd have no energy) and you'd start to catabolize muscle and organ tissue to meet the energy deficit instead of fat. but that's just my guess.

                Okay, I can't promise to respond more today b/c I gots shizzle to do, but I do enjoy seeing people engage with these ideas. And I have faith that everyone here just wants to see positive change in the world and that we WILL (collectively, somehow) eventually reach a detente.

                Meow,

                Adam
                Adam, you are arguing against what has been tested and proven over and over again the last hundred years, on both animals and humans! Your N=1 experiment is beyond retarded; but of course it could be done if the testing subjects have enough body fat to spare for a period of 90 days. Take five obese persons that volunteers and put them in an obesity asy...., ahem… controlled environment and give each of those two liter(68 oz) of Coca-Cola or similar soft drink per day, and guess what - they will all lose huge amounts of weight, and fat also!

                Make it a wager if you want, like a million dollars to the winner side, with a part to the five obese volunteers, that if they lose weight on the Coca-Cola diet, then the CICO team wins and becomes a million dollars richer, and vice versa if no weight loss then they pay the million to the anti-CICO team!
                "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 Gorbag View Post
                  Adam, you are arguing against what has been tested and proven over and over again the last hundred years, on both animals and humans! Your N=1 experiment is beyond retarded; but of course it could be done if the testing subjects have enough body fat to spare for a period of 90 days. Take five obese persons that volunteers and put them in an obesity asy...., ahem… controlled environment and give each of those two liter(68 oz) of Coca-Cola or similar soft drink per day, and guess what - they will all lose huge amounts of weight, and fat also!

                  Make it a wager if you want, like a million dollars to the winner side, with a part to the five obese volunteers, that if they lose weight on the Coca-Cola diet, then the CICO team wins and becomes a million dollars richer, and vice versa if no weight loss then they pay the million to the anti-CICO team!
                  Dude, that wager idea is brilliant. Someone needs to arrange this.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
                    Adam, you are arguing against what has been tested and proven over and over again the last hundred years, on both animals and humans! Your N=1 experiment is beyond retarded; but of course it could be done if the testing subjects have enough body fat to spare for a period of 90 days. Take five obese persons that volunteers and put them in an obesity asy...., ahem… controlled environment and give each of those two liter(68 oz) of Coca-Cola or similar soft drink per day, and guess what - they will all lose huge amounts of weight, and fat also!
                    68 ounces of Coca-Cola? How about a more reasonable 2,250 kCal/day isocaloric diet made up of 70% Coca~Cola, which would be in line with the thought experiment (tm) he's actually proposing? Put another group on a Primal diet of the same calorie intake and watch for any differences between the two groups. What do you think would happen? Identical changes in body composition? That's the "CICO" that we're arguing against (again, NOT the law of thermodynamics, which nobody but looneys dispute).

                    Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
                    Make it a wager if you want, like a million dollars to the winner side, with a part to the five obese volunteers, that if they lose weight on the Coca-Cola diet, then the CICO team wins and becomes a million dollars richer, and vice versa if no weight loss then they pay the million to the anti-CICO team!
                    But you're the only one contributing to this thread who has a million spare dollars to spend. Too bad you're piddling it all away on organic limes.
                    The Champagne of Beards

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by AdamK View Post
                      Dude, that wager idea is brilliant. Someone needs to arrange this.
                      Maybe the Coca-Cola Company could help in sponsoring it, to prove that even Coke can make people lose weight? Would give them very good publisity...
                      "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 AdamK View Post
                        Also, I have a quick N=1 experiment that could solve this whole situation. Someone from Team CICO who is passionate that "a calorie is a calorie" should go on a calorie restricted, mostly liquid sucrose diet for 3 months. Exercise as much as you want. Keep calories "low." Do whatever magic you want. But make sure to consume mostly liquid sucrose - like 70% of calories.

                        I'd bet you'd gain serious fat, even if you forced yourself to go to the gym AND starved yourself, because cals would be shunted into the fat tissue no matter what. So your BMR would plunge (you'd have no energy) and you'd start to catabolize muscle and organ tissue to meet the energy deficit instead of fat. but that's just my guess.
                        Even with that kind of liquid sucrose load, if this experiment is both calorie restricted and allows exercise at will, so little of that energy would end up in adipose tissue. It doesn't take more than two minutes on Pubmed to learn that. Ever heard of glycogenesis?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by AdamK View Post
                          Also, I have a quick N=1 experiment that could solve this whole situation. Someone from Team CICO who is passionate that "a calorie is a calorie" should go on a calorie restricted, mostly liquid sucrose diet for 3 months. Exercise as much as you want. Keep calories "low." Do whatever magic you want. But make sure to consume mostly liquid sucrose - like 70% of calories.
                          I did this a couple of years ago when I was in a ... less-educated stage :-)

                          The way it worked, I spent, I think, between a month and half and two months on a *very* restricted diet. All I could eat, erm, drink, was freshly squeezed juices. Also some plain water, a bit of salt, and some vitamin supplements. That's it. Nothing else. And the amount of juices was minimal, basically just enough glucose to keep the brain functional. As a practical matter, the juices were mostly carrot and apple, but with some variety thrown in, too.

                          That's pretty much what Adam talks about -- predominantly liquid sugar and not much of anything else, calorie-restricted.

                          The result of this n=1 was that I lost around 8-10 lbs (mostly fat, by visual examination)

                          Clearly, this is very much a crash diet, not a "way of eating" and not sustainable for long term. However insofar Adam wants a real-life test, here it was.
                          Last edited by Lumifer; 04-05-2013, 01:41 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                            68 ounces of Coca-Cola? How about a more reasonable 2,250 kCal/day isocaloric diet made up of 70% Coca~Cola, which would be in line with the thought experiment (tm) he's actually proposing? Put another group on a Primal diet of the same calorie intake and watch for any differences between the two groups. What do you think would happen? Identical changes in body composition? That's the "CICO" that we're arguing against (again, NOT the law of thermodynamics, which nobody but looneys dispute).
                            You are discussing body composition? Well, that's another question that implicates exercise and macros among other things! Stupid me, I thought this discussion was about CICO, somebody must have moved the goal post here...
                            "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 Gorbag View Post
                              You are discussing body composition? Well, that's another question that implicates exercise and macros among other things! Stupid me, I thought this discussion was about CICO, somebody must have moved the goal post here...
                              Fine. Who do you think would weigh more? Do we not really mean "lose fat" when we talk about strategies to lose weight? Am I the only one who jumps to that fargone conclusion?
                              Last edited by RichMahogany; 04-05-2013, 01:04 PM.
                              The Champagne of Beards

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Lumifer View Post
                                I did this a couple of years ago when I was in a ... less-educated stage :-)

                                The way it worked, I spent, I think, between a month and half and two month on a *very* restricted diet. All I could eat, erm, drink, was freshly squeezed juices. Also some plain water, a bit of salt, and some vitamin supplements. That's it. Nothing else. And the amount of juices was minimal, basically just enough glucose to keep the brain functional. As a practical matter, the juices were mostly carrot and apple, but with some variety thrown in, too.

                                That's pretty much what Adam talks about -- predominantly liquid sugar and not much of anything else, calorie-restricted.

                                The result of this n=1 was that I lost around 8-10 lbs (mostly fat, by visual examination)

                                Clearly, this is very much a crash diet, not a "way of eating" and not sustainable for long term. However insofar Adam wants a real-life test, here it was.
                                Interesting stuff, Lum.

                                Nevertheless, I'd like to see it done with liquid sucrose, not some glucose here (carrot) and fructose there (apple), but really hammer it with both the fructose and glucose shizzle at once. Go for the most insulinogenic stuff possible. And maybe even take a few doses of insulin on top of everything (since insulin doesn't matter, why not, right?)

                                Thing about your n=1... if you were burning fat during that period, you were effectively "eating" fat from your body. So setting this crap up is harder than it looks. like a 900 kcal/day diet of pure sugar wouldn't actually be a 100% all sugar diet, since you'd make up some of the deficit with other parts of you (fat/muscle/organs/etc).

                                in any event, techincalities aside... Gor, if you've got a slush fund, we need to get someone to set this up!

                                Do the Dew!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X