Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415
Results 141 to 150 of 150

Thread: Calories in/Calories out-what do we replace it with? page 15

  1. #141
    Stabby's Avatar
    Stabby is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Stabsville
    Posts
    2,462
    ...continuation of post.

    Actually I think many mainstream people recognize that you can change caloric expenditure by going for a walk in the same time you would have been sitting. Or working a standing job vs. a desk job. It is just that to them nothing at all influences our energy levels during their day, certainly not quality of food. And of course they don't think that thermogenesis throughout the day changes or that there is such thing as internal exercise. Which is kind of ludicrous and any professional field that doesn't attempt to explain all related phenomenon fails miserably.
    Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

    Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

  2. #142
    DFH's Avatar
    DFH
    DFH is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    1,778
    Quote Originally Posted by ciep View Post
    I apologize in advance DHF, I can't watch the video you posted because my nieces are asleep next to me on the couch. I don't want to wake them and I don't have headphones. I'll check it out tomorrow though for sure!

    But anyway, I did want to respond to this...



    That formula is not CICO. The author of that website is confused about what CICO means.

    That formula, translated to english, basically states that "if you burn 3600 calories more than you take in, then you will lose 1 lb of fat". It is entirely incorrect (as you point out). It is based on the (accurate) fact that 1lb of fat contains 3600 calories.

    That (incredibly incorrect) formula is nothing more than the misapplication of an accurate fact.

    It is not CICO.
    Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Again, this is one of those things where everyone gets to say what they think it means.

    I did read WWGF and I know that Taubes invested some time in de-bunking what the above formula says as a refutation of CICO. Maybe he doesn't understand it either, or maybe everyone just makes up what they want it to mean, and we are back to the beginning. The woman in the video also wrote a book refuting CICO as that statement. It's her graphic. You want to tell that us the books that are published about CICO have the wrong formula?

    One can not apply a theory if no one can even identify what it is and state it clearly.

    This is why I'm saying just scrap it. No one is going to get an agreed upon statement at this point.

  3. #143
    ciep's Avatar
    ciep is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Barneveld, NY
    Posts
    533
    +1 to everything Stabby has said over his last couple posts except this...

    Quote Originally Posted by Stabby View Post
    So I think that their basic formula is correct...
    It's not correct in any way.

    Here is the formula again:

    Quote Originally Posted by DFH View Post

    And here is what's wrong with it:

    It is a misapplication/confusion of the CICO concept in that CICO says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about fat loss. CICO tells us when a person will have more energy or less energy. It says nothing about what form the energy will be in. This energy gain/loss can be in the form of fat, but it could also be in the form of muscle, bone tissue, heat, etc (usually it's a combination of all of these). According to CICO, a calorie deficit is a loss of energy, a calorie surplus is a gain of energy. CICO is NOTHING MORE than a DEFINITION of energy gain/loss in terms of calories in/out. That's it. As Taubes points out, it is obvious, vacuous, and useless -- because it tells us NOTHING about HOW the energy is gained/lost or even what the result will be.

    I agree... the misunderstanding of the truism that is CICO has resulted in some seriously flawed ways to think about fatloss. Stabby described the overall problem very well in his last post.

  4. #144
    Stabby's Avatar
    Stabby is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Stabsville
    Posts
    2,462
    Ooh, I gotcha. yeah I wonder how much of fat we eat exists in hormones and tissue, probably a good deal. Glucose goes to glycogen, that's not fat. When you build muscle i

    I agree with scrapping it. I know exactly what it means but it is trash because it says absolutely nothing. What are we supposed to try to use fitday to get our calories in number and then magically pull a calories out from our asses? Nobody knows calories out. Basal met rate + time on a treadmill isn't necessarily even close to calories out, so why does this equation exist in the first place? Best to just work on health and getting some activity in and check the scale once a week.
    Last edited by Stabby; 05-28-2011 at 08:55 PM.
    Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

    Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

  5. #145
    ciep's Avatar
    ciep is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Barneveld, NY
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by DFH View Post
    Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Again, this is one of those things where everyone gets to say what they think it means.

    I did read WWGF and I know that Taubes invested some time in de-bunking what the above formula says as a refutation of CICO. Maybe he doesn't understand it either, or maybe everyone just makes up what they want it to mean, and we are back to the beginning. The woman in the video also wrote a book refuting CICO as that statement. It's her graphic. You want to tell that us the books that are published about CICO have the wrong formula?

    One can not apply a theory if no one can even identify what it is and state it clearly.

    This is why I'm saying just scrap it. No one is going to get an agreed upon statement at this point.
    - Yes, Taubes did invest time de-bunking that formula, and he did everyone a great service by doing so. As I've said, and you clearly agree: that formula is nonsense.

    - You can't "make up what you want it to mean". It is a precise mathematical formula, and it is wrong.

    - Taubes did understand the formula. He understood that it is a formula for how to lose fat and it is wrong. The woman who authored the website you linked also understands that it is an inaccurate formula for fatloss. Unfortunately, she does make the mistake of assuming it represents CICO -- an incorrect assumption on her part, but hardly of consequence because all she's interested in doing is explaining why the formula fails as a strategy for weightloss (and I'm sure her book does a great job of making this point).

    - I agree, one cannot apply a theory if they can't even identify what it is and means. However, I CAN identify what CICO is and means. I did it in my last post. If you'd like I can clarify it even further. BUT...

    - ...it would be pointless. CICO is useless in figuring out HOW to create fatloss (we all know this and agree on it).

    - We need not scrap CICO, we just need to stop focusing on it. It's useless. We need to scrap all of the CW "wisdom" about how to lose weight* that is based on misunderstandings of how CICO works (examples of this CW wisdom: "eat less, move more", the "fat lazy slob theory").

    *I believe this is what your OP is all about, and I wholeheartedly agree with you.
    Last edited by ciep; 05-28-2011 at 09:38 PM.

  6. #146
    RitaRose's Avatar
    RitaRose is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    3,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Stabby View Post
    Nobody knows calories out. Basal met rate + time on a treadmill isn't necessarily even close to calories out, so why does this equation exist in the first place? Best to just work on health and getting some activity in and check the scale once a week.
    This.

    At the exact same weight, walking the exact same distance at the exact same pace on the exact same path, I will have completely different CO. The variables are just too numerous to fathom.

    So I don't think, in my life, CI or CO are concepts that are something I even want to worry about, and I have trouble understanding why it's such a sticking point.
    My sorely neglected blog - http://ThatWriterBroad.com

  7. #147
    ciep's Avatar
    ciep is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Barneveld, NY
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by Stabby View Post
    Ooh, I gotcha...

    ...I agree with scrapping it. I know exactly what it means but it is trash because it says absolutely nothing. What are we supposed to try to use fitday to get our calories in number and then magically pull a calories out from our asses? Nobody knows calories out.
    Exactly.

    DFH, we have the answer to your OP at long last:

    What do we replace the current garbage CW weightloss strategies with? This...

    Quote Originally Posted by Stabby View Post
    Best to just work on health and getting some activity in and check the scale once a week.
    Works for me if it works for you.

  8. #148
    DFH's Avatar
    DFH
    DFH is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    1,778
    I think we are on the same page!

    Stop jiggling the handle and just flush that turd...

  9. #149
    ciep's Avatar
    ciep is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Barneveld, NY
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by DFH View Post
    I think we are on the same page!

    Stop jiggling the handle and just flush that turd...
    Hahaha! Well put.

    I'm heading to bed, goodnight.

  10. #150
    Bushrat's Avatar
    Bushrat is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,685
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Hold it. No one further should post until they've read and fully understood these two posts:

    The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D. Is a calorie always a calorie?

    AND

    http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/w...nd-calories-2/
    Last edited by Bushrat; 05-28-2011 at 11:31 PM.
    A steak a day keeps the doctor away

Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •