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
    It's a hypothetical experiment, so why don't we just add the groups you propose. Let's add a HFCS but no caffeine group and a table sugar no caffeine group. You really think the optimal results will be the 70% sucrose group? Or do you just think they can "keep up" with the "primal" group (Should we call them 50% fat, 30% protein, 20% CHO from fruit/tubers/veg, or do you think that's a poor representation?)

    Or do you think a fifth group would get the best possible results, something like the "Primal" group but with some proportion of the fat calories being replaced with table sugar?

    In any case, the idea that any of the different groups would end up with different results lies in contrast to what I understand to be the CICO prescription/dogma. Even if we don't agree what combination of foods would give the best results, the very idea that different isocaloric combinations would yield different results is in line with the Alternative Hypothesis. Don't you think?
    Unsurprisingly, Rich, I agree with everything you've been saying here

    Also, like someone else said earlier, we NEED this kind of disambiguation. Most normal diets -- including veg, ornish, atkins, primal -- all have a lot in common. Almost all say ixnay to liquid sugar and refined junk carbs, for instance.

    What if you make all the calories so sh*tty that they just barely keep you alive? Make em transfats, omega 6 veg oils, processed wheat, sucrose vs. your standard "real food" atkins/primal. 2500 kcal of the crappiest food you can think of vs. 2500 kcal of good primal/LC/"real" food. Maintain out for 3 years. You CICO peeps really think that would lead to IDENTICAL body compositions? Not slightly different. IDENTICAL. The CICO "hypothesis" demands this result. You'd have to be out of your gourd to believe that would happen.

    Let me say that again.

    According to CICO, both groups must wind up with IDENTICAL fat tissue results, assuming calories are totally controlled. Not slightly different. IDENTICAL.

    The big problem with CICO as it's typically understood is that it's probably not even a viable hypothesis. It's a logical error, the confusing of cause and effect. It doesn't explain anything. At the end of the day HOW do calories "turn into" fat, if not for hormones like insulin and enzymes like HSL and LPL and ASP and etc?

    HOW HOW HOW HOW? ANSWER ME YOU FOOLS!! Is there a calorie receptor you've discovered? If so, let the world know, because you've won a Noble Prize. If not, then you need to explain things, ultimately, in terms of hormonal regulation of the fat which inevitably leads to insulin and etc.

    To give another extreme example of how not all cals are equal: put someone on a 100% all carb diet. No protein, no fat. In a few weeks, that person would die (and thus lose ALL his fat).

    So maybe I stand corrected. The Ultimate Foolproof No Way It Can Fail Diet is a 100% carb diet, because it will kill you, and you will lose all of your excess fat in the process, 100% of the time.

    QED.

    CICO is right after all. I feel so ashamed.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by AdamK View Post
      So maybe I stand corrected. The Ultimate Foolproof No Way It Can Fail Diet is a 100% carb diet, because it will kill you, and you will lose all of your excess fat in the process, 100% of the time.
      Hey, it's GUARANTEED!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by eKatherine View Post
        Hey, it's GUARANTEED!

        Comment


        • A 100% protein or fat diet would kill you just as fast or faster. Point? The CICO argument is old and has no meaning in real life. Who gives a shit, not me.


          Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
          It's a hypothetical experiment, so why don't we just add the groups you propose. Let's add a HFCS but no caffeine group and a table sugar no caffeine group. You really think the optimal results will be the 70% sucrose group? Or do you just think they can "keep up" with the "primal" group (Should we call them 50% fat, 30% protein, 20% CHO from fruit/tubers/veg, or do you think that's a poor representation?)

          Or do you think a fifth group would get the best possible results, something like the "Primal" group but with some proportion of the fat calories being replaced with table sugar?

          In any case, the idea that any of the different groups would end up with different results lies in contrast to what I understand to be the CICO prescription/dogma. Even if we don't agree what combination of foods would give the best results, the very idea that different isocaloric combinations would yield different results is in line with the Alternative Hypothesis. Don't you think?
          Optimal, how? If we are just talking about fat loss, yes i think a 70/30 sugar diet would beat out a low carb paleo diet. If your talking health, body composition, strength gain then i would be on the fence and it would depend on the kinds of foods consumed. If it was truly 70% table sugar then no, 70% orange juice, maybe to yes.

          EDIT: And yes i absolutely beleive macro and nutrient ratios matter when it comes to body composition. Although there are a few bodybuilders that may prove otherwise but you still need the basics of protein/carbs/fat. Eating nothing but Mcdonalds burgers vs grassfed homemade burgers, body comp might be the same. Health, not so much.
          Last edited by Zach; 04-05-2013, 07:28 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by j3nn View Post
            The OP says weight loss depends on lowering carbs, not calories. The OP is wrong. Dead thread.
            Classic.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Zach View Post

              Optimal, how? If we are just talking about fat loss, yes i think a 70/30 sugar diet would beat out a low carb paleo diet. If your talking health, body composition, strength gain then i would be on the fence and it would depend on the kinds of foods consumed. If it was truly 70% table sugar then no, 70% orange juice, maybe to yes.
              "Optimal how" is actually a really good question. As someone who never worries about losing weight, I do tend to get overly caught up in the "diet as weight loss protocol" mindset. But I mean optimal with regards to energy levels, adiposity, satiety signaling, and overall well-being. Which I think are all inextricably linked.

              Originally posted by Zach View Post
              EDIT: And yes i absolutely beleive macro and nutrient ratios matter when it comes to body composition. Although there are a few bodybuilders that may prove otherwise but you still need the basics of protein/carbs/fat. Eating nothing but Mcdonalds burgers vs grassfed homemade burgers, body comp might be the same. Health, not so much.
              And this is a big fat summary of things upon which we agree...
              The Champagne of Beards

              Comment


              • OK If we line up 1000 humans and ask them what they can physically do, you will get a massive difference. some will have the capacity for 100 pushups, some will be able do none, some will be able to do sub 4 minute kilometers, some won't be able to run for more than a kilometer. Some will look like Mr Burns, others will look like Adonis.

                So if we line up 1000 humans and ask them what they can metabolically do. Nearly everybody assumes that they will be all the same. My belief is that their metabolic differences will be alot like peoples physical differences. Some will be able to mobilise stored fat with ease, others won't. Some will be able to convert all the glucose their body needs, others won't. Some will be able to regulate their blood levels of various energy sources with ease, some won't.

                I could go on, basically our metabolism is made up of "tools" that help our bodies deal with what ever we might find convenient to put in our mouths at a particular time, as grok did for over a million years. Just like our bicep muscle is a "tool" our bodies use to pull its head/body above a bar or branch.

                Ok so lets look at CICO with that in mind. The CICO equation stands unmovable especially in regards to the first law of thermodynamics. So lets ask someone who's "tool" of mobilizing fat is fairly poor (this would typically appear in an obese person) to eat with a calorie deficit for a week. In that week the persons body will automatically adjust and burn less energy, as it can't mobilize its energy stores, it must do this to balance the irrefutable thermodynamic equation of CICO. The result of this will typically be minimal to none fat lost and a noticeable level of lethargy and laziness, at this stage the dieter gives up and comes on the MDA forums to whine.

                If we gave this task to chocotaco, we would probably find his body kick in with its well used, functioning, fat mobilizing metabolic tool and he would lose the fat easily. hence we also find him on the forums pushing the CICO barrow.

                So there it is my belief that our bodies will use what ever metabolic "tool" or strategy it finds easiest to balance the CICO equation. Our bodies mightn't necessarily use the tool we want it to use, or balance the side of the equation we wish. This is where CICO fails as a dieting strategy.

                What is a good strategy then? I hear you ask. Well one that trains our metabolic tools, like we train our physical tools, see the thread in my signature if your interested.
                Last edited by dilberryhoundog; 04-05-2013, 08:07 PM.
                A little primal gem - My Success Story
                Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                  "Optimal how" is actually a really good question. As someone who never worries about losing weight, I do tend to get overly caught up in the "diet as weight loss protocol" mindset. But I mean optimal with regards to energy levels, adiposity, satiety signaling, and overall well-being. Which I think are all inextricably linked.
                  Probably because 99% of people who even think about their diet are looking to lose fat and look good naked. The other 1% are trying to optimize their health and or performance. At least at first. After so many years i think its too individual to say if a optimal paleo diet would beat out an optimal high carb diet or vice versa. Im definitely not going to argue with you or Neckhammer or whoever that seems to have zeroed in on their diet and have it working for them. Personally i feel like more people would do better on higher carbs coming from the right sources and i certainly feel that all people need some form of carbs somewhere in their diet for optimal health. Besides that, there are many ways to health and fat loss. I said it before in a different thread but i bet knowing what i know now, i could retry a low carb diet and succeed where i failed before. Would it be optimal, i have my doubts.

                  As for CICO, i believe it is only specified for weight loss or gain. When people add on health markers or body composition then it becomes something different. Thats why its pointless to argue about it.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Zach View Post
                    Can we change the Coca-cola to just table sugar? I think the caffeine and HFCS would effect results too much. If it was Coca-cola with HFCS then yes i think they would start gaining fat and continue to lose muscle.
                    Not much difference between tablesugar and HFCS, tablesugar contains 50 % fructose and HFCS contain 55 % fructose, if I remember correctly. And I do not understand you point here, if the liver convert let's say 1,250 kcal from the fructose into fat and the daily energy expenditure is 2,750 kcal, then the body will burn the 1,000 kcal from glucose and 1,750 kcal from fat,(1,250 kcal from the Coke and 500 kcal from the body) and will stay in a 500 kcal deficit. The caffeine in the Coca-Cola may give a little metabolic boost in favour of the output, yes, but no reason to exaggerate that! So, obese people doing a Coca-Cola diet will lose plenty of weight and fat if in a calorie deficit...
                    "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 KimchiNinja View Post
                      I thought this was a paleo forum and we all knew it was white-carbs driving fat accumulation; lower your carbs to 50g and you lose weight no matter your calorie intake or calorie expenditure.
                      Strange, I've intentionally gained 32lb last year eating 50-60g carbs a day, and then lost weight while eating more carbs including sources like white rice and potatoes. I must be a special specimen - a genetic mutant! Shhh, keep this a secret though, I don't want the guv'mint to know cuz they'll kidnap me into a secret lab and run dem crazy experiments on me.

                      Comment


                      • Great post dilberry

                        Comment


                        • Holy Christ, if you alternative hypothesis people spent half the effort researching basic physiology as you do constructing useless thought experiments, you would have abandoned all this nonsense a long time ago.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
                            Not much difference between tablesugar and HFCS, tablesugar contains 50 % fructose and HFCS contain 55 % fructose, if I remember correctly. And I do not understand you point here, if the liver convert let's say 1,250 kcal from the fructose into fat and the daily energy expenditure is 2,750 kcal, then the body will burn the 1,000 kcal from glucose and 1,750 kcal from fat,(1,250 kcal from the Coke and 500 kcal from the body) and will stay in a 500 kcal deficit. The caffeine in the Coca-Cola may give a little metabolic boost in favour of the output, yes, but no reason to exaggerate that! So, obese people doing a Coca-Cola diet will lose plenty of weight and fat if in a calorie deficit...
                            I believe there is a world of difference between the two besides just the ratio of fructose/glucose at least how they effect the metabolism. The caffeine from 8-10 colas i believe would have a pretty substantial boost but i just would like to take that out because its a stimulant, not a food. I agree that obese people would lose weight on a deficit drinking that much cola, i was referring to maintenance calories in that quote.

                            Also fructose is not automatically turned into fat.

                            Comment


                            • CICO Team, I ask yet again: HOW do calories "turn into" fat, if not for the work of hormones, enzymes, etc? Is it Magic?

                              Do our fat cells have calorie receptors? You guys seems to be so up on the biochemistry. So how, pray tell, does it all work? Clearly you think insulin has ZERO bearing on the situation, so how does it happen? What hormones and enzymes ARE involved?

                              How do fatty acids enter adipocytes and get stored as triglyerides? What's the biochemistry?


                              And "a lot of stuff is involved, but it's all subordinate to calories" isn't an answer. It's a dodge. I want BIOCHEMISTRY from you people.

                              I want a full and complete list -- not a link to some yahoo online CICO guru you worship or some random study you've found on pubmed that "proves" CICO. I want an explanation of HOW CALORIES BECOME FAT.

                              HOW?

                              Gonna ask it again: HOW? HOW HOW HOW HOW?

                              "The Earth is Flat and ain't nobody gonna tell me otherwise, even when you show me a picture of the Earth from space. NASA must have faked it to further the conspiracy."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by AdamK View Post
                                CICO Team, I ask yet again: HOW do calories "turn into" fat, if not for the work of hormones, enzymes, etc? Is it Magic?

                                oDo our fat cells have calorie receptors? You guys seems to be so up on the biochemistry. So how, pray tell, does it all work? Clearly you think insulin has ZERO bearing on the situation, so how does it happen? What hormones and enzymes ARE involved?

                                How do fatty acids enter adipocytes and get stored as triglyerides? What's the biochemistry?


                                I want a full and complete list -- not a link to some yahoo online CICO guru you worship or some random study you've found on pubmed that "proves" CICO. I want an explanation of HOW CALORIES BECOME FAT.

                                HOW?

                                Gonna ask it again: HOW? HOW HOW HOW HOW?
                                You think you're asking rhetorical questions, but the answers can be found at your local community college if you really care. I'm not well versed in biochemistry, but it's not hard to spend a few minutes researching basic concepts to see you're full of shit.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X