Page 26 of 44 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 440

Thread: "Calories in / Calories Out" -- Please Stop the Madness page 26

  1. #251
    Forgotmylastusername's Avatar
    Forgotmylastusername is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    947
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by KimchiNinja View Post
    Sorry for my catch-up posts, I'm in a different time zone than most of you. But I'm proud to say I made it thru all 25pgs. It was painful but there were actually a few moments of intelligent discussion.

    I'd like to point out to the CICO fanatics who keep saying "if you starve yourself you will lose weight", that you are kinda wrong. There was that one study with some obese rats (poor guys always get screwed) who they starved, and the rats died FAT! Link anyone? There are 6mo old babies now who are obese! Are you going to say the starving rat is still eating too much? Are you going to say the obese baby needs to work out more?

    Absurd.

    Friday night, peace out.
    I know of no obese diseased rats. But there was a human staving experiment that didn't fail in producing weight loss. Minnesota Starvation Experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

  2. #252
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,944
    So if I weigh 150 lbs (I do), and my TDEE is 3500 calories a day(pretty close), I'll simply weigh 0 after 150 days of starvation? Good to know. Nice to know it's that simple.

  3. #253
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,606
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    So if I weigh 150 lbs (I do), and my TDEE is 3500 calories a day(pretty close), I'll simply weigh 0 after 150 days of starvation? Good to know. Nice to know it's that simple.
    You're assuming 100% of your body weight can be converted into energy. What about water? What about bone? What about all your skin, hair, nails, joints, etc that cannot be broken down? Your entire premise is a fallacy.

    You won't make it anywhere near 150 days without food, and you'll probably die of a nutritional deficiency before all your stored calories are gone.

    Why do you keep creating straw men? Why can't you just accept that you can't lost weight without an energy deficit and you can't gain weight without a surplus? That is the very definition of conservation of energy. Why do you hate physics? I don't understand why you have an agenda. Does it make you feel better to think you can eat more without consequences as long as you stick to some convoluted eating plan?
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  4. #254
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,944
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    Why do you keep creating straw men? Why can't you just accept that you can't lost weight without an energy deficit and you can't gain weight without a surplus? That is the very definition of conservation of energy. Why do you hate physics? I don't understand why you have an agenda. Does it make you feel better to think you can eat more without consequences as long as you stick to some convoluted eating plan?
    Show me one time where I said the Law of Conservation of Energy could be violated. You're, once again, proving just how disingenous you are willing to be in order to feel like you won an argument on the internet.

    What makes me feel better is to eat in a way that normalizes my neuroendocrine satiety signaling. Which causes me to expend more energy than it causes me to eat (in my case, causes me to expend the same as it causes me to eat, since I'm at a relative equilibrium).

    Why do you deny that CI and CO are dependent variables?

  5. #255
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Account closed
    Posts
    1,534
    Seems to me that both the CICO camp and the Alternative Theory camp accept that calories matter, and that BMR/RMR is part of the equation. Both would accept, I think, that the rate at which individuals burn calories can vary due to differences in endocrine response, and neurotransmitters like serotonin.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but my take is that the CICO camp would accept that BMR/RMR can be altered by changing one's pattern of exercise, e.g.: a couch potato who starts working out can effect a higher BMR/RMR. But the CICO camp does not accept that changes to how much energy one burns can be affected through what is eaten (rather than how much), hence a calorie is a calorie and excess caloric intake over waste excreted and physical exertion (including basal metabolism) necessarily is the ONLY way one puts on weight.

    The Alternative Theory camp says that what is eaten can change the endocrine response and neurotransmitter uptake, so that BMR/RMR is not a fixed entity, or changeable only through non-food lifestyle alterations such as exercise, meaning that CICO calculations involve an entity that is in their description a dependent variable, rather the way octane rating can affect mileage, or putting sugar cubes into the gasoline supply can wreck an engine entirely.

    The CICO camp would say that what is eaten matters in 2 ways: eating industrial oils and refined sugars and grains are not optimal for health, but do not contribute to overweight except when consumed to excess. The Alternative Theory camp would say that what is eaten matters in another way, by damaging numerous functions of the endocrine system even when not consumed in excess of caloric need, e.g., industrial oils (even if eaten below daily caloric need) can damage insulin receptors and lead to insulin resistance, or someone who already has insulin resistance who consumes refined sugars and grains (even if eaten below daily caloric need) can trigger the secretion of excess insulin that then further damages cells (leading to myriad and usually related "common soil" diseases).

    Have I mis-stated the position of either camp? I am trying to clarify all this to my own way of thinking without being argumentative or making this any sort of an ad hominem attack on those who hold either camp's view. If possible, can any amendments to my summary be made in a collegial and respectful manner? I find there are many intelligent arguments on both sides of this issue, but often it seems that an apples-to-apples comparison is eschewed so that sidebars and lesser details can further the exchange without resolution.

    Thanks for your consideration.
    Last edited by Finnegans Wake; 04-05-2013 at 07:15 AM.

  6. #256
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,944
    Quote Originally Posted by Finnegans Wake View Post
    The CICO camp would say that what is eaten matters in 2 ways: eating industrial oils and refined sugars and grains are not optimal for health, but do not contribute to overweight except when consumed to excess. The Alternative Theory camp would say that what is eaten matters in another way, by damaging numerous functions of the endocrine system even when not consumed in excess of caloric need, e.g., industrial oils (even if eaten below daily caloric need) can damage insulin receptors and lead to insulin resistance, or someone who already has insulin resistance who consumes refined sugars and grains (even if eaten below daily caloric need) can trigger the secretion of excess insulin that then further damages cells (leading to myriad and usually related "common soil" diseases).
    You're dead on.

  7. #257
    Lumifer's Avatar
    Lumifer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    116
    I do not presume to speak for the whole CICO camp, whatever it might be, but I can put forward my own views :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Finnegans Wake View Post
    Seems to me that both the CICO camp and the Alternative Theory camp accept that calories matter, and that BMR/RMR is part of the equation. Both would accept, I think, that the rate at which individuals burn calories can vary due to differences in endocrine response, and neurotransmitters like serotonin.
    Sure, no problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finnegans Wake View Post
    Correct me if I am wrong, but my take is that the CICO camp would accept that BMR/RMR can be altered by changing one's pattern of exercise, e.g.: a couch potato who starts working out can effect a higher BMR/RMR. But the CICO camp does not accept that changes to how much energy one burns can be affected through what is eaten (rather than how much), hence a calorie is a calorie
    Nope. A calorie is a calorie, it's a physical unit of energy. But "how much energy one burns" depends on great many things, including genetics, age, exercise, how much one eats, what one eats, the temperature of the environment, etc. etc. I would agree without any reservations that you can affect your energy output through manipulating what you eat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finnegans Wake View Post
    excess caloric intake over waste excreted and physical exertion (including basal metabolism) necessarily is the ONLY way one puts on weight.
    Not exactly -- not excess energy intake over BMR+exercise, but excess energy intake over total energy spend is the ONLY way one puts on weight (again, we're ignoring things like water here).

    Quote Originally Posted by Finnegans Wake View Post
    The Alternative Theory camp says that what is eaten can change the endocrine response and neurotransmitter uptake, so that BMR/RMR is not a fixed entity, or changeable only through non-food lifestyle alterations such as exercise, meaning that CICO calculations involve an entity that is in their description a dependent variable, rather the way octane rating can affect mileage, or putting sugar cubes into the gasoline supply can wreck an engine entirely.
    Sure, I agree, no problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finnegans Wake View Post
    The CICO camp would say that what is eaten matters in 2 ways: eating industrial oils and refined sugars and grains are not optimal for health, but do not contribute to overweight except when consumed to excess.
    If "excess" is defined as "positive energy balance" then yes, if you consume less energy than you spend, you will not gain weight regardless of what this energy is packed in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finnegans Wake View Post
    The Alternative Theory camp would say that what is eaten matters in another way, by damaging numerous functions of the endocrine system even when not consumed in excess of caloric need, e.g., industrial oils (even if eaten below daily caloric need) can damage insulin receptors and lead to insulin resistance, or someone who already has insulin resistance who consumes refined sugars and grains (even if eaten below daily caloric need) can trigger the secretion of excess insulin that then further damages cells (leading to myriad and usually related "common soil" diseases).
    Sure, maybe, possibly, we're getting into complex and individualized matters here.

    But I don't see how that's opposed to CICO -- CICO makes no claims as to what's good for your health and what's not. It might very well be that eating SAD leads to insulin resistance, but I don't think CICO has anything to do with this.


    To summarize, CICO (in my understanding of it) makes very strong but limited claims. The strong claim is that for the matter of gaining or losing weight (but NOT overall health, NOT body composition) the only thing that matters is the sign of your energy balance. If the balance is positive, you consume more energy than you output, you will gain weigth. If the balance is negative, you spend more energy than you consume, you will lose weight.

    It is a very strong claim because it says that the ONLY way to gain (or lose) weight is to be in positive (or negative) energy balance, *and* being in positive (or negative) energy balance will ALWAYS lead to gaining (or losing) weight.

    This strong claim is quite limited, however. CICO does NOT say anything about what's optimal for health. It does NOT say anything about body (re)composition and preferentially burning fat. It does NOT say anything about what drives energy inputs and outputs. It does NOT claim that energy input and output are independent of each other. It does NOT say that the output is fixed and only the input calories matter.

  8. #258
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,944
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumifer View Post
    I do not presume to speak for the whole CICO camp, whatever it might be, but I can put forward my own views :-)



    Sure, no problem.



    Nope. A calorie is a calorie, it's a physical unit of energy. But "how much energy one burns" depends on great many things, including genetics, age, exercise, how much one eats, what one eats, the temperature of the environment, etc. etc. I would agree without any reservations that you can affect your energy output through manipulating what you eat.



    Not exactly -- not excess energy intake over BMR+exercise, but excess energy intake over total energy spend is the ONLY way one puts on weight (again, we're ignoring things like water here).



    Sure, I agree, no problems.



    If "excess" is defined as "positive energy balance" then yes, if you consume less energy than you spend, you will not gain weight regardless of what this energy is packed in.



    Sure, maybe, possibly, we're getting into complex and individualized matters here.

    But I don't see how that's opposed to CICO -- CICO makes no claims as to what's good for your health and what's not. It might very well be that eating SAD leads to insulin resistance, but I don't think CICO has anything to do with this.


    To summarize, CICO (in my understanding of it) makes very strong but limited claims. The strong claim is that for the matter of gaining or losing weight (but NOT overall health, NOT body composition) the only thing that matters is the sign of your energy balance. If the balance is positive, you consume more energy than you output, you will gain weigth. If the balance is negative, you spend more energy than you consume, you will lose weight.

    It is a very strong claim because it says that the ONLY way to gain (or lose) weight is to be in positive (or negative) energy balance, *and* being in positive (or negative) energy balance will ALWAYS lead to gaining (or losing) weight.

    This strong claim is quite limited, however. CICO does NOT say anything about what's optimal for health. It does NOT say anything about body (re)composition and preferentially burning fat. It does NOT say anything about what drives energy inputs and outputs. It does NOT claim that energy input and output are independent of each other. It does NOT say that the output is fixed and only the input calories matter.
    When pressed, CICO adherents always claim that CICO=FLT (First Law of Thermodynamics).

    Then, they go around telling people "because CICO describes weight gain or loss, simply manipulating these variables is the only strategy/best strategy to achieve weight loss"

    It's an unfounded logical leap. It ignores cause and effect. It ignores hormones, organs, feedback loops, and all kinds of complicated wizardry that goes on in the human body.

    As I've said, the Alternative Hypothesis doesn't presuppose any suspension of Newtonian physics. It just doesn't view people as simple calorimeters. The Alternative Hypothesis is that the variables are dependent.

    CICO as prescription presupposes that they are not.

    Again, NOBODY with half a brain believes that you can gain weight in a calorie deficit or lose weight in a calorie surplus. That's like saying a circle is square, or that up is down. What's contended is the cause. Do we store fat because we eat more, or do we eat more because we have upregulated fat storage via complex and only partly understood mechanisms? That's CICO vs. Alternative Hypothesis.

  9. #259
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    3,579
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    When pressed, CICO adherents always claim that CICO=FLT (First Law of Thermodynamics).

    Then, they go around telling people "because CICO describes weight gain or loss, simply manipulating these variables is the only strategy/best strategy to achieve weight loss"

    It's an unfounded logical leap. It ignores cause and effect. It ignores hormones, organs, feedback loops, and all kinds of complicated wizardry that goes on in the human body.
    You are continuing pulling straw-men out of a certain private body part, where the light of reason has no access, and the sun never shines?!

  10. #260
    Silvergirl's Avatar
    Silvergirl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    502
    Quote Originally Posted by KimchiNinja View Post
    Peter is smart. His new organization to TEST some of the same theories I posted above is about the most exciting thing happening in nutrition. What else is happening? Everyone else seems to be barking up the wrong tree.

    Plus he has some cool slides, in this one if you invert the change in the American diet since the 1960s, it becomes primal. Again proving my theory "do exactly opposite of what the Americans are doing".

    http://nusi.org/wp-content/uploads/2...6_slide-61.png
    I will check out his site. Seems interesting. I am pretty certain for me that I ate way less calories and did more exercise to lose less weight on CW diet. followed by instant relapse. The Zone done strictly worked the best for me and I maintained for over 2 years. I didn't have the support and ideas at the time of full fat cooking, and I suddenly felt ill on it, now I know that my thyroid likely tanked. I am really really hoping that this time I have found the right diet for me. ) It will be pretty impossible to go back as allergies reared their ugly head and I just can't eat the same without tough consequences.
    Starting Primal June 2012 at 148.5lbs, goal weight in November 2012.
    Now 95lbs and holding.
    Primal, minus eggs, dairy and a myriad of other allergens.

Page 26 of 44 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... 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
  •