The True Definition of Calories i.e. "Why what you believe is extremist BS" page 65

[eKatherine]

I think the healthy weight range gives lots of wiggle room for personal preference. Since if you are losing weight while exercising your body composition is changing, you really can't know until you are happy with what you see that's you've reached your goal, provided of course you don't have a warped body image.

[ChocoTaco369]

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.

What are you talking about? CICO specifically says:
Weight loss: CI<CO
Weight gain: CI>CO
Maintenance: CI=CO

That is the ONLY definition. Stop trying to pervert things to suit your agenda. Take your logical fallacies, trolling and outright lies somewhere else.

[ChocoTaco369]

This just blew my mind.

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

The only poop being excreted was in that post. Total lies. There will be no evidence posted proving that because it doesn't exist. This, along with many other insulin fairy tales, is why the low carb movement is the laughing stock of the health and fitness community, and it undermines the true meaning of paleo.

[magicmerl]

What are you talking about? CICO specifically says:
Weight loss: CI<CO
Weight gain: CI>CO
Maintenance: CI=CO

That is the ONLY definition.

That's not quite the same as this:

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, the first quote pretends that all calories are equal. Interchangeable. With the implication being that if people are overweight it's their own damned fault because they lack willpower and are choosing to shove food in their pie-hole.

The second one acknowledges that the non-calorie nutrients that come bundled with the calorie are important, and that different calories have different satiety levels. With the implication that it's easier to lose weight when you DON'T behave as if 'a calorie is a calorie'.

[Zach]

I hate this thread.

[Omni]

I hate this thread.

Why?
Did you choose the wrong side?

[ChocoTaco369]

See, the first quote pretends that all calories are equal. Interchangeable. With the implication being that if people are overweight it's their own damned fault because they lack willpower and are choosing to shove food in their pie-hole.

The second one acknowledges that the non-calorie nutrients that come bundled with the calorie are important, and that different calories have different satiety levels. With the implication that it's easier to lose weight when you DON'T behave as if 'a calorie is a calorie'.

No it doesn't. Not at all. All calories are equal for weight loss, weight gain and maintenance. That is the very definition of CICO. Some foods keep you better sated than others, so you are less likely to overeat eggs and steak than candy and bread. That has absolutely nothing to do with CICO and to even bring that up is a major logical fallacy. Just because most people can't maintain a caloric deficit on a pizza and ice cream diet doesn't mean anything at all. The quality of calories has absolutely nothing - NOTHING - to do with CICO. That has to do with individual metabolic health, which is an entirely different topic.

Again:

Weight loss: CI<CO
Weight gain: CI>CO
Maintenance: CI=CO

It doesn't matter if they're bread calories, steak calories, ice cream sandwich calories, Doritos calories or Mountain Dew calories.

[Zach]

Why?
Did you choose the wrong side?

This whole argument is pointless.

[UTfootball747]

I'm just confused as to why there are so many people on this forum ("Primal Blueprint Nutrition") aggressively arguing against certain proposals of . . . "Primal Blueprint" nutrition. I know similar exercises are played out all over the internet on every conceivable topic, but the appeal escapes me.

[ChocoTaco369]

I'm just confused as to why there are so many people on this forum ("Primal Blueprint Nutrition") aggressively arguing against certain proposals of . . . "Primal Blueprint" nutrition. I know similar exercises are played out all over the internet on every conceivable topic, but the appeal escapes me.

Exactly which principles are we arguing against? I hope you don't mean CICO. That is the only principle that matters when it comes to weight loss, and it's acknowledged by Mark Sisson.

17 Reasons You’re Not Losing Weight | Mark's Daily Apple

8. You’re eating too much.

Low-carb isn’t magic. It reins in wild hunger and tames insulin, but calories do still matter – especially once you approach your ideal weight. In fact, those last few pounds often don’t respond to the same stuff that worked so well to get you to this point. Eating nut butter by the spoonful and hunks of cheese without regard for caloric content may have gotten you this far, but you’ve got to tighten things up if things aren’t working. And that’s the real test, isn’t it?

This reason should be #1 because it is all that matters in terms of weight loss. But it's lower on the list because, let's face it, Mark Sisson is trying to sell a product to a legion of people that want to believe they can eat whatever they want and lose weight. Chronic Cardio is above it for God's sake. Cardio is a great weight loss tool if you control caloric intake - you can exercise larger deficits - but we are a society that hates counting calories, hates running and loves eating. Cardio doesn't make you fat, it is just notorious for making you hungry, so some people wind up eating all the calories they burned and then some due to hunger because they don't track their food intake. So, unfortunately, CICO gets buried. All the rest on his list are just tips and tricks how to make it easier for you to mentally maintain as low of a calorie diet as possible. The problem is the body wants to store fat - 99% of our existence, fat storage has been advantageous to survival since we didn't have refrigerators and supermarkets. We spent 250,000 years weeding out those that couldn't store fat efficiently for those that could. We are the products of a race of people that survived famines - Mother Nature has bred us to store fat as efficiently as possible while the ectomorphs were killed off when food ran short. Unfortunately, the images brainwashed into our heads by the lamestream media have given us images of what we should look like, and they're below the homeostasis Mother Nature has painstakingly fashioned for us. The people that should be killed of the easiest have become the idols. Go figure.