Page 21 of 44 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 440

Thread: "Calories in / Calories Out" -- Please Stop the Madness page 21

  1. #201
    AdamK's Avatar
    AdamK is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    california
    Posts
    59
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumifer View Post
    Which idea is that? I'm not sure what do you mean by the "Alternate Hypothesis". There are many.
    Thanks for clarifying, and that's a good point. I mean the purest form of the Reverse Causality idea. I did my best to distill it in my article on the Black Box.

    Would you be willing to kind of summarize what I'm saying in this article, to see whether we're on the same page?

    I really think the problem in the whole CICO Wars is that the metaphors we're all using are incomplete. The Black Box, I believe, allows us to speak more sensibly about the situation. It's the essence of lipophilia (or the alt hypothesis, if you prefer), because it reframes the discussion as a problem of CICO to the fat cells as opposed to CICO to the whole body.

  2. #202
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,434
    Thought I already posted this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Attia
    Key concept #5 – the Alternative Hypothesis
    If, like me, you don’t subscribe to Current Dogma, you’d better at least have an alternative hypothesis for how the world works. Here it is:

    Obesity is a growth disorder just like any other growth disorder. Specifically, obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation. Fat accumulation is determined not by the balance of calories consumed and expended but by the effect of specific nutrients on the hormonal regulation of fat metabolism. Obesity is a condition where the body prioritizes the storage of fat rather than the utilization of fat.

  3. #203
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,434
    In short, the neuroendocrine theory of obesity = the alternative hypothesis = the black box hypothesis

  4. #204
    AdamK's Avatar
    AdamK is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    california
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    In short, the neuroendocrine theory of obesity = the alternative hypothesis = the black box hypothesis
    Right. Exactly!

  5. #205
    eKatherine's Avatar
    eKatherine is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    4,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumifer View Post
    One consequence of CICO is that "eat less" advice IS GUARANTEED TO WORK if you're willing to go into starvation mode. Issues of willpower and health aside, it's physical inevitability that at some level of "eat less" you will lose weight. That's a useful characteristic, rare in the dieting world :-)
    A curious "guarantee" indeed. You should ask for your money back. I don't see a lot of real-world evidence that it's helped more than a few young guys who needed to tweak their diet and exercise program.

  6. #206
    AdamK's Avatar
    AdamK is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    california
    Posts
    59
    Here's another post I wrote to distinguish the 3 ideas we're all talking about, as if they were 2 ideas.

    Most people on Earth just know 1 idea (CICO).

    A select few -- e.g. this group -- know the carbs-insulin idea (CIH).

    But it's not a war between CIH and CICO. Both ideas oversimplify. We need a third, more accurate, more parsimonious frame. What Rich said -- the neuroendocrine theory.

  7. #207
    Lumifer's Avatar
    Lumifer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamK View Post
    Would you be willing to kind of summarize what I'm saying in this article, to see whether we're on the same page?
    Sure.

    You're saying that there is significant signaling going, the body "tells" (hormonally and otherwise) to the mind how much food/energy/calories it "wants". In different situations, depending on a lot of factors -- age, diet, hormones, etc. -- the body signals different things -- either "more energy" or "less energy".

    If the signal get stuck -- and there can be a variety of reasons for that -- on "more energy", the person is likely to overeat and eventually become obese.

    Would that be a fair summary?

  8. #208
    Lumifer's Avatar
    Lumifer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by eKatherine View Post
    A curious "guarantee" indeed. You should ask for your money back. I don't see a lot of real-world evidence that it's helped more than a few young guys who needed to tweak their diet and exercise program.
    Let's put it this way. Imagine a theoretical experiment where you want to lose weight (say, go down from 200 lbs to 150 lbs) and I get to control, completely and utterly, your food intake. Can I *make* you lose 50 pounds through nothing but controlling your food intake?

  9. #209
    j3nn's Avatar
    j3nn is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Hudson Valley, NY
    Posts
    3,090
    Why does CICO "fail millions"?

    Are we talking low-satiety or what, exactly? Eating random foods without paying attention to their nourishing properties and satiety factor is the only reason that CICO is difficult for so many. Change the food variables and it's still CICO. I think people arguing against CICO have the wrong argument entirely. The thermal effects of certain foods and the satisfaction of others simply changes the cico figures but not the actual cause and effect.

    I think the argument people wrongly make is that steak is more satisfying than cake to some people, which results in less calories consumed, but also increases the energy expended during digestion, so you could eat more steak for he same calories.

    The CICO changes, but that is all. You can argue about the foods that offer the best satiety and highest thermal effect and how they affect your hormones and digestion, but no one can deny that ultimately calories are the underlying measurement that affect results. How you manipulate your intake is your own personal formula, but you can't escape the truth of calories. It's just math with millions of variables. Find your equation, don't discount the entire science of it and try to create a new, unnecessary version because you can't admit it's the variables and not the actual tool of measurement.
    | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

    It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. - Samuel Adams

  10. #210
    AdamK's Avatar
    AdamK is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    california
    Posts
    59
    PrimalCon New York
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumifer View Post
    Sure.

    You're saying that there is significant signaling going, the body "tells" (hormonally and otherwise) to the mind how much food/energy/calories it "wants". In different situations, depending on a lot of factors -- age, diet, hormones, etc. -- the body signals different things -- either "more energy" or "less energy".

    If the signal get stuck -- and there can be a variety of reasons for that -- on "more energy", the person is likely to overeat and eventually become obese.

    Would that be a fair summary?
    First of all, thanks for the summary. It's gratifying to me to have a conversation about this that doesn't turn into a religious battle

    I think you're close -- and this is why I feel like the battle between CICO and non-CICO people (at least those "in the know") is often like splitting hairs.

    Here's where I agree:

    "there's significant signaling going on." = totally!

    "In different situations, depending on a lot of factors -- age, diet, hormones, etc. -- the body signals different things -- either "more energy" or "less energy"." = also agree

    But it's not like the body "tells" the mind how much to consume. I mean it does (leptin and all that). But the mind is in many ways irrelevant. When a baby grows in the womb, that grow certainly signals the brain to "overeat," but that overeating is so not the point. It's all the "growth stuff" that makes the fetus bigger. If you clamp down on the mind -- deafen it to the fetus' cry for more food -- the fetus will still grow at the expense of the rest of the body. The pregnant woman will have less energy to move. She'll get colder. She'll even catabolize her own muscle tissue and organs to feed the child. Any food she DOES eat will be preferentially siphoned to the fetus to help it grow.

    "mind control" isn't the answer to any kind of out of control growth on the body, in other words, including obesity.

    This isn't to say that the mind is irrelevant, of course Rather, that the first focus should be "what the eff is messing up how much fat I'm storing" as opposed to "what the eff is making my brain want too much food?"

    does that all make sense?

Page 21 of 44 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... 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
  •