[QUOTE=j3nn;1151140]This. Shift the fat to the left and right and it would be the infamous love-handle problem area that millions of people complain about. There are isolated incidents of all sorts of weird bodily manifestations, mutations happen.[/QUOTE]
Btw, apropos of nothing, checked out the link to your blog. Those cookies look like good stuff!
FWIW, I also lean somewhat towards the libertarian on a lotta stuff...
Simple answers for complex mechanisms will most certainly be wrong.
[QUOTE=AdamK;1151157]Btw, apropos of nothing, checked out the link to your blog. Those cookies look like good stuff!
FWIW, I also lean somewhat towards the libertarian on a lotta stuff...[/QUOTE]
My husband loved them too. Somewhat libertarian? Come to the not-so-dark side, we have nutella cookies. :)
[QUOTE=j3nn;1151160]My husband loved them too. Somewhat libertarian? Come to the not-so-dark side, we have nutella cookies. :)[/QUOTE]
Ha! Nutella is like the best stuff on the planet, stop tempting me!
[QUOTE=Gorbag;1151089]It doesn’t matter whether fat is stored in fat cells or not - what matters if you are in a positive or negative energy balance - that’s what determines the outcome of a diet! So a calorie deficit overrules everything else related to weight loss, you will lose more calories from your body than you stores, and most of this will come from stored body fat, even on a crappy diet! Forget about insulin, because even if you inject it, when in a calorie deficit, you still lose stored body fat since a calorie deficit overrules everything else, also hormones...[/QUOTE]
I don't really agree with your statement. here's how:
In mathematics there is an age old rule, which is, both sides of an equation have to balance, simple right? been the case for many years. Anyway lets look at CICO. CICO should actually be written as CI=CO, there it is a simple equation with both sides balanced, lets do some math. Your statement above would appear as:
[B]CI - 500cals + 500cals (from fat stores) = CO[/B]
OK so I agree that you have a balanced equation, you have taken 500cals out of your diet to provide an unequal equation (a deficit) and the human body has put 500 cals back in from your fat stores to balance CI=CO. Great, fantastic, what a charmingly simple solution to an unbalanced equation. BUT............
The human body is a smart little cookie and has worked out that the equation can be balanced another way. We will still enforce the 500 calorie deficit from the CI side, but watch this, its amazing, its just as simple and efficient as the equation it balanced above:
[B]CI - 500cals = CO - 500cals[/B]
There we have it, the human body can also just reduce its output to balance the equation, which it has done with [B]NO FAT LOST[/B].
Our bodies have 2 simple choices to not break maths, one involves a major metabolic system (mobilisation of fat stores), the other involves lazyness (something humans are very good at).
Ok so lets take this a step further. Which equation will our bodies use?
As the controllers of our bodies we can control both sides of the equation. We can force ourselfs to eat less and exercise more, this is fantastic as the body will no doubt take the minus fat store option to balance the equation, awesome, problem solved right?
Well let me ask you this. [B]What if every bodies metabolism or other factors are not similar?[/B] what if somebody has a hormonal or organ function difficulty or their bodies haven't used the fat mobilization system for ages and its not functioning to full capacity or is in the habit of using the laziness option? They got a fight on their hands don't they. They gotta force their body to do the fat storage option, when their body could just say, why don't I just eat more? or maybe I won't go for that jog today, the CI=CO equation will still be balanced. An average new western dieter when faced with a calorie deficit would probably have an equation that looked some thing like this:
[B]CI - 500cals + 50 cals (from poor utilization of fat stores) = CO - 450cals (of lazyness hehe)
This would continue until they could find a way to improve their fat mobilization ability or they bust their diet because they just can't force their body to try to break maths anymore. Some people would get through, others won't, if you want to know how many, look at the statistics on failed diets. [B]If you wan't to find a way to lose fat you gotta find out why your body is not metabolising fat as well as others, don't just throw a calorie deficit at it. [/B]A good place to start looking might be marks primal blueprint, or have a peep at the link in my sig.
CICO, like the carb curve, waist hip ratio and all the other fitness tools, are just that, tools and guidelines to assist one in improving their health.
None of them can be considered a blanket rule to be followed to the letter, it is blatantly obvious that CICO has failed repeatedly in real world application.
[B]dilberryhoundog[/B], did you read the article from Lyle McDonald that somebody posted here? CICO can be used to describe a dynamic system as the human metabolism, it does not have to be static! It's a lot of factors in play, and yes the body can put on breaks on the output side etc., no disagreement about that. And we cannot compare the metabolism between two different persons either because there are a lot of differences that must be calculated. But you are obviously also buying into some unfortunate “myths” that there are people “that haven't used the fat mobilization system for ages”, as you claim, which is positively false. Everybody also the most obese insulin resistant person are daily burning off their own body fat - day and night! The problem is that they also store at least the same amount or more than they burn off! Yes, hormones may mess up things, especially if they makes you eat more, but hormones can’t do much without incoming calories that surpasses the daily energy expenditure. Sometimes a hormonal imbalance may create a huge amount of water edema in the body, but this is not the kind o weight gain we are talking about here, and is beyond the point.
I recommend you again to read the article of McDonald posted some pages anterior on this thread and you will probably understand that all this discussion about CICO is a straw-man fight only...
[QUOTE=Zach;1151064][I]"I personally think the Kitavans represent a Black Swan to the claim that carbohydrate causes insulin resistance (not sure whether AdamK is with me here), but that doesn't refute the evidence that a VLC diet may help restore insulin sensitivity. Again, it could be PUFA's or HFCS or any other 4-letter word that's running around breaking metabolisms. The Alternative Hypothesis, itself, doesn't have a dog in that fight. It just says "you grow tall by eating more calories than you expend, but you don't grow tall because you eat more calories than you expend. Growing fat is like growing tall" [/I]
I dont understand how anyone can believe that carbohydrates alone cause insulin resistance. I know in this little primal bubble, it seem like low carb is the majority but in the real world, a high carb diet consisting of 50% calories from carbohydrates is the vast majority. Entire countries that contain most of the worlds population eat this way with out any sign of insulin resistance or obesity. This is simple fact and anyone who doesnt believe this has blinders on. Insulin resistance and obesity only became a problem some 40 years ago and completely coincides with processed foods and seed oils.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's pretty clear that people with properly functioning metabolisms can handle significant percentages of their daily caloric intake as carbohydrate from unprocessed sources without a problem.
[QUOTE=Paleobird;1150461]Salt is not a supplement, it's a condiment. There's a difference. The most nutritionally dense foods on the planet are also low carb foods. Cramps are common because of the loss in excess water weight experienced when first starting a low carb diet, not because of any lack of nutrients in low carb foods.[/QUOTE]
It is so a supplement. It's hard to get a lot of sodium in your diet just from whole foods, especially years ago if you didn't live by the ocean and have access to salty seafoods. Table salt is used as a condiment, sure, for flavor, but it is first and foremost a mineral supplement. It's easy to not get enough sodium when eating natural foods, and even more crucial to supplement if you perspire and urinate often (common with LC), so humans supplement the diet with salt. Condiments make it sound nonessential. Doesn't one of your favorite ketosis wizards recommend some kind of supplemental electrolyte potion using salt?
[QUOTE=RichMahogany;1151370]Yeah, it's pretty clear that people with properly functioning metabolisms can handle significant percentages of their daily caloric intake as carbohydrate from unprocessed sources without a problem.[/QUOTE]
Yea and i think that is a good point. Carbs might be hard on people with less then optimal metabolisms. I think this is where the correlation = causation come from with this topic. So to say carbs caused it is misleading and wont necessarily fix anything by removing them.