Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Calories in / Calories Out" -- Please Stop the Madness

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I am trying to find an answer to my problem and this thread is only making things a lot more confusing. Even Robb wolf is starting to contradict himself! Low Carb and Paleo: My Thoughts Part 1

    I will avoid posting my issue my log post on this thread, however, if anyone feels that they can come back to me with an argument that works then I am all for it because less than 50g of carbs doesnt seem to work and i am not consuming a million calories a day. I am neither gaining nor losing weight anymore, but what is noticeable is my fat is not dropping and my face and stomach are more bloated than ever.

    you can access my post here: Body Fat drop stopped - PaleoHacks.com

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jason3beard
      Please, stop saying "calories in / calories out" as if it were some smart thing to say.
      Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
      not even the spambots are touching this thread
      ah actually Derp my darling wee friend - they are !!!!!!!!!! ^^^^^^^
      "never let the truth get in the way of a good story "

      ...small steps....

      Comment


      • Originally posted by muesli View Post
        I am trying to find an answer to my problem and this thread is only making things a lot more confusing. Even Robb wolf is starting to contradict himself! Low Carb and Paleo: My Thoughts Part 1

        I will avoid posting my issue my log post on this thread, however, if anyone feels that they can come back to me with an argument that works then I am all for it because less than 50g of carbs doesnt seem to work and i am not consuming a million calories a day. I am neither gaining nor losing weight anymore, but what is noticeable is my fat is not dropping and my face and stomach are more bloated than ever.

        you can access my post here: Body Fat drop stopped - PaleoHacks.com
        He's flogging a dead horse. Nobody on this thread is arguing that anyone can consume unlimited calories as fat in addition to whatever else they are eating and not gain weight (or even lose), and that is how he defines "LC jihadists". The anti-carb cultic attitude he describes barely exists, if at all. Also nobody here is saying that everybody should be in ketosis at all times, nor that it is best for everyone.

        No doubt he has a reason for deliberately mischaracterizing the alternate hypothesis in this way. Or perhaps it's because he is a lightning rod for crazies and likes to argue with people who are wrong on the internet (which I've seen him do). That can totally distort a person's view of the minds of people around them.

        Comment


        • I was bored in the office today, improved my CICO formula.

          [E-in, (Fat + Protein + Carb) * Hunger Factor] - [E-out, Base Metabolic Rate + Exercise +/- Chg Pooping] = (Fat Mass Chg + Lean Mass Chg)

          Included pooping!!! When you eat more you don't gain as much as CICO predicts because your body manages this with increased pooping. When you eat less you don't lose as much as CICO predicts because your body works the food more efficiently and you poop less.

          Trying to work in macro nutrients on the left and tie that to body composition on the right:

          * When you eat mostly meat/vegi and no white carbs your metabolic rate increases (to where it should be), thus you can eat more without gaining fat. Materials give opportunity for muscle gain.

          * When you eat mostly white carbs calories are partitioned directly into fat mass increases, leaving less for energy and muscle gain (because you are eating starvation foods), you therefore gain weight even when not eating much and look slothlike. You have less energy now, because you got cheated by nature, you thus eat more, and gain even more fat mass. Materials tend to drive fat gain.

          Hunger Factor: this is a new tweak. Eating more carbs cranks up insulin and tells you to eat more, hunger factor increases to say 1.2, maybe 1.8, you go crazy and clean out the fridge. Eating ketogenic turns off insulin, making you forget about food, you eat less, say 0.8.

          Meh, it's a work in progress, but it incorporates hunger, and poop, way better than "eat less, exercise more".
          Last edited by KimchiNinja; 06-13-2013, 03:41 AM.

          Comment


          • You are forgetting the thermogenic effect of foods, depending on meal size and duration of inter-prandial periods (basically the time when your insulin is back to baseline until your next meal).

            These two factors alter CICO. You can also add amount and quality of sleep, stress levels ... this gets really hairy ...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by dkJames View Post
              You are forgetting the thermogenic effect of foods
              Thanks, I actually don't know anything about that concept. What is it?

              On stress I would suggest nature does what it does because when you have meat you are safe, no stress, body increases metabolic rate and uses calories without care. When you have no meat and eat crappy grains, your body gets stressed, these are starvation foods, and thus slows down metabolic rate. So there is a form of stress baked into the model, but not all types of stress, true.

              Never thought about sleep.

              Wish I could quit my day job, I could work on this for at least a year, trying to boil the complex down to something simple, but useful...

              Comment


              • Yeah, it is a complex problem and you can only come up with a simplified model which may describe your case well, but not me for example. But it is fascinating and you learn a lot of things on the way.

                The thermogenic effect of foods has to do with the fact that digestion takes energy And protein is the most thermogenic macro. So if you eat a lot of protein, you will probably feel very warm because it takes some energy to digest it, more than for fats and carbs. I know that 1g of protein amounts to 4Cal in a calorimetric chamber measuring these things but in your body, you will lose ~ 1Cal digesting it so in effect you get ~ 3Cal for 1g of digested protein. Moreover, the bigger the meal size, the more thermogenic the food is. And how can you have a BIG meal without feeling like you are binging on foods all day long ? By not eating all day long (cf. IF).

                Comment


                • I forgot to mention that there is another problem with the CICO model: it only looks at the energy aspect, nothing else. But foods and digestion affects the hormonal system and balance, and some brain functions that are low level and regulate many down-stream processes. When I look at my meals and their macro partition, if I ate 3 meals a day partitioned like my single meal a day, I would definitely grow fat because I eat a mix of carbs / fats / proteins which would keep my insulin levels rather high all day long. My only fat loss time window would be sleep time, provided that I go to bed after insulin went back to baseline. But since I fast for 20hours / day, I mostly run on fat all that time and can have whatever I want (provided that it is primal'ish because I prefer food quality and proper nutrition rather than junk food!) during my single meal. CICO does not take these subtleties into account ...

                  Comment


                  • Also don't forget that when your muscles have been stimulated by a change in exercise volume or intensity to grow, a pound of muscle only contains about 660 calories. The idea that a calorie = a calorie is the basis of the CICO oversimplification that states that all calories are interchangeable. The idea that a pound of protein = a pound of fat is clearly incorrect according to those same laws of physics.

                    So while in theory it may take eating a pound of fat to put on a pound of fat, it would only take eating a pound of lean muscle meat to put on a pound of muscle.

                    Suppose you do eat that pound of muscle, and that's almost all you eat for the day? You can still put on a pound of muscle, yet the energy calories required for maintenance and energy transaction loss will come out of a few ounces of fat stores. Net gain: still almost a pound. Result: recomposition.
                    Last edited by eKatherine; 06-13-2013, 06:16 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by muesli View Post
                      I am trying to find an answer to my problem and this thread is only making things a lot more confusing. Even Robb wolf is starting to contradict himself! Low Carb and Paleo: My Thoughts Part 1

                      I will avoid posting my issue my log post on this thread, however, if anyone feels that they can come back to me with an argument that works then I am all for it because less than 50g of carbs doesnt seem to work and i am not consuming a million calories a day. I am neither gaining nor losing weight anymore, but what is noticeable is my fat is not dropping and my face and stomach are more bloated than ever.

                      you can access my post here: Body Fat drop stopped - PaleoHacks.com
                      Are you still eating 300g of protein? What's your fat protein carbs ratio?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by dkJames View Post
                        I forgot to mention that there is another problem with the CICO model: it only looks at the energy aspect, nothing else. But foods and digestion affects the hormonal system and balance, and some brain functions that are low level and regulate many down-stream processes. When I look at my meals and their macro partition, if I ate 3 meals a day partitioned like my single meal a day, I would definitely grow fat because I eat a mix of carbs / fats / proteins which would keep my insulin levels rather high all day long. My only fat loss time window would be sleep time, provided that I go to bed after insulin went back to baseline. But since I fast for 20hours / day, I mostly run on fat all that time and can have whatever I want (provided that it is primal'ish because I prefer food quality and proper nutrition rather than junk food!) during my single meal. CICO does not take these subtleties into account ...
                        Its more than just subtleties that bust the CI=CO model.

                        I can balance that equation all day long without fat needing to come into the equation (outlined below).

                        The basic premise of CICO model is that 1. for a given energy expenditure, you need a given energy intake (this is true), 2. if you then reduce the intake you can make up the energy difference with fat so that the equation balances (this is also true). These are written as;

                        Ver 1. 2000kcal in = 2000kcal out

                        Ver 2. (1500kcal food + 500kcal fat) in = 2000 kcal out.

                        Where the model goes bust is thus; there is a third way to balance the equation, you simply reduce the expenditure by the same amount as you reduced the intake. written as;

                        Ver 3. (2000kcal - 500kcal) in = (2000kcal - 500kcal) out

                        See the success of the model hinges on the organism (not machine) strictly following version 2. But the model forgets that the organism (us) is an independent thinker, with a sub consious energy system that can & does use version 3 as well as version 2.

                        Usually what happens to us when we use the CICO model is, we kick in our conscious minds and force Ver 2. upon our selves, we get some initial fat loss in the first few weeks, but slowly (for various reasons) our subconscious energy survival response may start using Ver 3. more and more, resulting in little to no fat loss. Then you get a big MDA forum battle and nobody really comes out any the wiser. Except maybe you, right now, after reading that
                        Last edited by dilberryhoundog; 06-17-2013, 01:51 AM.
                        A little primal gem - My Success Story
                        Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

                        Comment




                        • Last edited by sting; 06-17-2013, 03:25 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
                            But the model forgets that the organism (us) is an independent thinker, with a sub consious energy system that can & does use version 3 as well as version 2.

                            Usually what happens to us when we use the CICO model is, we kick in our conscious minds and force Ver 2. upon our selves, we get some initial fat loss in the first few weeks, but slowly (for various reasons) our subconscious energy survival response may start using Ver 3. more and more, resulting in little to no fat loss.
                            ^ I thought this was smart.

                            Yes, CICO is a very "nature must follow our over-simplified rigid human logical rules" sort of model which implies all you do is "eat less and exercise more" and nature must do what you say; lose weight. But it just doesn't work in practice, cause nature doesn't agree.

                            The body's base energy expenditure is indeed a big piece. You eat less, your body adapts and your energy decreases, and you don't lose weight. But what really tweaks people's minds is the theory that you eat a lot (of carbs), but your energy decreases (the stereotypical lazy fat person eating coke and pizza dough), because nature grabs a % of these incoming calories and deposits them direct to fat thus decreasing the calories available to you as energy (because you are eating starvation foods and nature is trying to help you out).

                            People ripped on me for starting this thread, but I maintain that CICO is really stupid, masquerading as being smart.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by KimchiNinja View Post
                              lower your carbs to 50g and you lose weight no matter your calorie intake or calorie expenditure.
                              So all of those healthy, longest-lived people living in the Blue zones around the world are following a low carb diet? Interesting!

                              Comment


                              • bugs me when people say "paleo is low carb" etc. paleo is a list of materials, not a blueprint. nor does it demonize any macronutrient, only food choices.

                                I doubt many people wouldn't see success doing the following (+ lifting heavy 3 times a week)

                                eat lots and lots of animal proteins. Looking to gain muscle? Eat fattier cuts. Losing fat? Minimize the fatty cuts.
                                eat lots and lots of potatoes and rice, especially post workout.
                                eat lots and lots of vegetables & some fruits. Looking to gain weight? Eat less veggies, you need the room for caloric dense foods. Losing weight? Eat more, they will curb your hunger.

                                None of this "add butter to everything", "eat bacon with every meal" nonsense.

                                Protein is the most important macronutrient for many reasons like satiety, muscle building & repair, not readily converted to body fat, etc etc... followed by carbs to fuel your activities. Fat then plays a role in rest & recovery from those activities. Prioritize appropriately.

                                pretty simple way to either be in a caloric surplus / caloric deficit, at least seems that way to me.

                                Paleo is whatever you make of it, the macrocomposition of your meals should be up to you... not the typical low carb bs I read on here.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X