Page 64 of 69 FirstFirst ... 14546263646566 ... LastLast
Results 631 to 640 of 686

Thread: The True Definition of Calories i.e. "Why what you believe is extremist BS" page 64

  1. #631
    The Rebooted Body's Avatar
    The Rebooted Body is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    182
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    Low nutrient diets and foods that lack satiety lead to increased caloric consumption, which leads to weight gain. Again, CICO. This is nothing new, and one of the fundamentals of CICO and why Primal works - whole foods contain more nutrition and satiety per calorie. That's all this is.


    See above. That is EXACTLY what you said - low satiety foods lead to more calorie consumption which leads to more weight gain. That is the perfect definition of CICO. Thanks for agreeing buddy.
    Lol. I'm glad it took 60 something pages of this thread to find out that ChocoTaco has been misdefining CICO this whole time.

    Thread = Waste of Time.

    Before you hold CICO up on an altar, you should be clear what CICO says. Because its not what you say it is.

  2. #632
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco Guest
    I don't know why it's so hard to reconcile issues of food quality with CICO. How about we reduce it to purely scientific terms: If your body experiences an energy excess for any reason, there will be a net gain in energy (body fat or lean mass, depending on the excess). I don't know how anyone can dispute that.

    I would also like to mention that mainstream diet advice does advocate a whole foods diet along with calorie restriction.

  3. #633
    The Rebooted Body's Avatar
    The Rebooted Body is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by Timthetaco View Post
    I don't know why it's so hard to reconcile issues of food quality with CICO. How about we reduce it to purely scientific terms: If your body experiences an energy excess for any reason, there will be a net gain in energy (body fat or lean mass, depending on the excess). I don't know how anyone can dispute that.

    I would also like to mention that mainstream diet advice does advocate a whole foods diet along with calorie restriction.
    Because even though CICO taken a face value does result in weight loss, it doesn't solve anyone's problems. Unless CICO begins to take into account micronutrient density, hormone response, and other factors IT DOESN'T WORK LONG TERM. And that's the problem. CICO, at face value, doesn't address those things and a large percentage of CICO believers pretend they don't matter either.

    Everyone spouting CICO as the end answer is harping on a technicality, not a solution for everyday people. People aren't a math equation and any program that pretends they are will fail them.
    Last edited by The Rebooted Body; 03-12-2013 at 08:57 AM.

  4. #634
    john_e_turner_ii's Avatar
    john_e_turner_ii is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Flower Mound, Texas
    Posts
    2,083
    Tim, I think it's hard for some to get this because they have tried to reduce their food intake and failed. Therefore, in their mind, they don't believe reducing calories or food intake works.

  5. #635
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,644
    Everybody is getting stuck in semantics.

    When someone says CICO doesn't work... what they are usually saying is "eat less and move more" doesn't work. Its not that it would not work in a metabolic ward study where we force you to stay under a certain caloric load, its that it doesn't work out here in the real world. Thats all. Quality of food always counts. If you take CICO in the widest lens possible then you can include reward feedback and food quality. It's just that most people promoting "eat less move more" don't. What people are rejecting is the "gluttony and sloth" theory of obesity.

  6. #636
    PaleoMom's Avatar
    PaleoMom is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by Timthetaco View Post
    I don't know why it's so hard to reconcile issues of food quality with CICO. How about we reduce it to purely scientific terms: If your body experiences an energy excess for any reason, there will be a net gain in energy (body fat or lean mass, depending on the excess). I don't know how anyone can dispute that.

    I would also like to mention that mainstream diet advice does advocate a whole foods diet along with calorie restriction.
    or body heat

  7. #637
    LauraSB's Avatar
    LauraSB is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Delaware Valley
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by Timthetaco View Post
    I don't know why it's so hard to reconcile issues of food quality with CICO. How about we reduce it to purely scientific terms: If your body experiences an energy excess for any reason, there will be a net gain in energy (body fat or lean mass, depending on the excess). I don't know how anyone can dispute that.
    Quote Originally Posted by PaleoMom View Post
    or body heat
    Or the subconscious desire to move more. I am pretty sure that below a certain intake, I just have less energy to do stuff, including random, fidgety movement. I don't care enough to buy a BodyBugg, but I suspect it would tell me a lot about calories out.
    50yo, 5'3"
    SW-195
    CW-125, part calorie counting, part transition to primal
    GW- Goals are no longer weight-related

  8. #638
    BestBetter's Avatar
    BestBetter is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NY / Italy
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Kochin View Post
    Then you have another interesting phenomenon: if you eat too much fat, your body can basically dump some of it. You'd still gain weight, of course, but, unlike sugar, your body seems perfectly able to defecate almost all the fat you eat if you aren't using it, so any weight-gain is slow and minimal, compared to people who eat huge amounts of sugar, who can gain weight faster as the insulin-spike encourages storage and sugar is harder to just "dump" (pardon the pun).

    Some days I'll eat 200+ grams of fat. If I don't do much that day or the next day, most of it will come out the other end within 48h. So "kcals-in = kcals-out" still technically applies, but the kcals may not truly be going "in" to begin with.
    This just blew my mind.

    How does your body poop out excess fat without digesting and storing it?

  9. #639
    Omni's Avatar
    Omni is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    968
    Quote Originally Posted by Kochin View Post
    Then you have another interesting phenomenon: if you eat too much fat, your body can basically dump some of it. You'd still gain weight, of course, but, unlike sugar, your body seems perfectly able to defecate almost all the fat you eat if you aren't using it, so any weight-gain is slow and minimal, compared to people who eat huge amounts of sugar, who can gain weight faster as the insulin-spike encourages storage and sugar is harder to just "dump" (pardon the pun). Combine with IF to "keep on top" of that small amount of storage and you're no longer in a kcal-surplus, despite eating so much.
    Some days I'll eat 200+ grams of fat. If I don't do much that day or the next day, most of it will come out the other end within 48h. So "kcals-in = kcals-out" still technically applies, but the kcals may not truly be going "in" to begin with.
    As far as I was aware, passing excess fat in stools was primarily and indicator of malabsorption, I am not aware of a body mechanism to choose to not absorb fat.
    But an interesting observation, could this be a contributer to the effect on those that "fail to thrive" on a high fat diet, there are a number of mechanisms involved from stomach acid, pancreatic enzymes, bile salts, microbiota and GI damage like Coeliac, IBS & Leaky gut.

  10. #640
    girlhk's Avatar
    girlhk is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    967
    Some people are just going to weigh more than others due to body type or body size. So how do we know what we are supposed to weigh?

    Two of my sisters and I are all about the same height (5'3-4"ish), but our weights and body types vary. One sister is 25 lbs more than me, and even at the end of my pregnancy, I did not reach her weight. But she does not look overweight. She gains weight proportionally and her figure is curvy. Her frame is large. But if you just look at the numbers, she's probably considered overweight. My other sister's frame is closer to mine, but bones are larger. So even when wearing the same size jeans, she weighs a bit more. My sister-in-law is a couple of inches shorter than us at 5'2-3"ish and weighs about 85-90 lbs. Always has her whole life with her very small frame. She has no health problems and all charts would consider her underweight. Sometimes we talk about wanting to weigh X more or X less than we do, but maybe the reason we can't get there is because we aren't meant to be? Maybe this is what makes restricting calories so difficult beyond a certain point. Just wondering out loud here...

Page 64 of 69 FirstFirst ... 14546263646566 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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