Page 28 of 44 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 440

Thread: "Calories in / Calories Out" -- Please Stop the Madness page 28

  1. #271
    Lumifer's Avatar
    Lumifer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    116
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    But for populations of live, actual humans running around in the actual, real world, I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't agree that the latter is more likely to have a widespread positive effect.
    For populations of live, actual humans I don't know. I suspect different subgroups would find different methods working better for them.

    The experience of the past 40 years has shown that NOTHING works well enough to make large chunks of population lose weight easily.

    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Now, tell me if we disagree
    We disagree on the meaning of the expression "CICO" and what it implies :-) I don't think we're that far apart on actual human physiology.

  2. #272
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumifer View Post

    We disagree on the meaning of the expression "CICO" and what it implies :-) I don't think we're that far apart on actual human physiology.
    Can we still be friends? Do you want to do karate in the garage?

  3. #273
    Lumifer's Avatar
    Lumifer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Can we still be friends? Do you want to do karate in the garage?
    Tai Chi, please :-)

  4. #274
    AdamK's Avatar
    AdamK is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    california
    Posts
    75
    Hi CICO-ers and Alt-Hyp-ers alike,

    Greetings and good morning.

    So FYI, I drew up a little cartoon about the rats that starved to death obese (so much for CICO for them) here. Check it out. Enjoy the funny!

    Also, I have a quick N=1 experiment that could solve this whole situation. Someone from Team CICO who is passionate that "a calorie is a calorie" should go on a calorie restricted, mostly liquid sucrose diet for 3 months. Exercise as much as you want. Keep calories "low." Do whatever magic you want. But make sure to consume mostly liquid sucrose - like 70% of calories. That's way above and beyond what the Twinkie Diet guy (Mark Haub - actually a very nice dude - we've spoken) did in his little n=1 a few years back.

    The reason this would be helpful is that it would effectively separate the two hypotheses. Because when you cut calories (on any normal diet), you lower carbs/improve carbs and thereby secrete less insulin (among other things). Even Haub's Twinkie Diet could be seen as a poor man's version of a lower/better carb/insulin diet, as Tom Naughton pointed out on his blog about that n=1.

    The Mountain Dew Diet, on the other hand, (what I'm proposing) would absolutely lead to increased insulin secretion but decreased calorie consumption. It would be much more orthogonal. You'd have to track cals carefully, of course!

    So that's my challenge. "Do the Dew" for 3 months -- 70-80% of calories from liquid sugar and keep calories LOW -- and see whether you gain or lose fat.

    I'd bet you'd gain serious fat, even if you forced yourself to go to the gym AND starved yourself, because cals would be shunted into the fat tissue no matter what. So your BMR would plunge (you'd have no energy) and you'd start to catabolize muscle and organ tissue to meet the energy deficit instead of fat. but that's just my guess.

    Okay, I can't promise to respond more today b/c I gots shizzle to do, but I do enjoy seeing people engage with these ideas. And I have faith that everyone here just wants to see positive change in the world and that we WILL (collectively, somehow) eventually reach a detente.

    Meow,

    Adam

  5. #275
    j3nn's Avatar
    j3nn is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Hudson Valley, NY
    Posts
    3,374
    Low carb is a tool, a metabolic hack. It's not much different than the potato hack: both establish satiety through dietary manipulation which tends to initially create a higher rate of compliance; both easily create a deficit if you eat less than you expend (see first point); both make you rapidly lose and keep off water and glycogen weight, and both limit a large number of foods to eat, subsequently taking essential nutrients out of the equation which often have to be supplemented. Ultimately, these hacks and other like them lead to the same high rate of failure due to noncompliance. The one common factor all weight loss diets have is: CICO. You can't deny this. You can manipulate it, hack it, but the truth is evident no matter how much mysticism you want to apply to certain theories. Sorry, guys, your wizards aren't as powerful and knowing as legends say. They're mostly trying to profit off of recreating the wheel of thermal dynamics. They're still selling round objects, though, even if the performance might seem magical and unbreakable at first.
    | 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

  6. #276
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,167
    Quote Originally Posted by j3nn View Post
    Low carb is a tool, a metabolic hack.
    with you so far!
    Quote Originally Posted by j3nn View Post
    It's not much different than the potato hack
    It's completely different than the potato hack. Are you even remotely serious? Comparing eating a single food with avoiding an unnecessary macronutrient?

    Quote Originally Posted by j3nn View Post
    both establish satiety through dietary manipulation which tends to initially create a higher rate of compliance; both easily create a deficit if you eat less than you expend (see first point); both make you rapidly lose and keep off water and glycogen weight, and both limit a large number of foods to eat, subsequently taking essential nutrients out of the equation which often have to be supplemented.
    Which essential nutrients exactly have to be supplemented on low carbohydrate diets?

    Quote Originally Posted by j3nn View Post
    Ultimately, these hacks and other like them lead to the same high rate of failure due to noncompliance.
    Or, in the case of the potatoes, death...

    Quote Originally Posted by j3nn View Post
    The one common factor all weight loss diets have is: CICO.
    Have you read any of the entire 29 pages of discussion here?

    Quote Originally Posted by j3nn View Post
    You can't deny this. You can manipulate it, hack it, but the truth is evident no matter how much mysticism you want to apply to certain theories.
    You clearly didn't read this thread at all..

    Quote Originally Posted by j3nn View Post
    Sorry, guys, your wizards aren't as powerful and knowing as legends say. They're mostly trying to profit off of recreating the wheel of thermal dynamics.
    Yup. You definitely didn't read the thread at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by j3nn View Post
    They're still selling round objects, though, even if the performance might seem magical and unbreakable at first.
    Who's arguing magic? Strike 3 on having read the thread before commenting.

  7. #277
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    3,709
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamK View Post
    Hi CICO-ers and Alt-Hyp-ers alike,

    Greetings and good morning.

    So FYI, I drew up a little cartoon about the rats that starved to death obese (so much for CICO for them) here. Check it out. Enjoy the funny!

    Also, I have a quick N=1 experiment that could solve this whole situation. Someone from Team CICO who is passionate that "a calorie is a calorie" should go on a calorie restricted, mostly liquid sucrose diet for 3 months. Exercise as much as you want. Keep calories "low." Do whatever magic you want. But make sure to consume mostly liquid sucrose - like 70% of calories. That's way above and beyond what the Twinkie Diet guy (Mark Haub - actually a very nice dude - we've spoken) did in his little n=1 a few years back.

    The reason this would be helpful is that it would effectively separate the two hypotheses. Because when you cut calories (on any normal diet), you lower carbs/improve carbs and thereby secrete less insulin (among other things). Even Haub's Twinkie Diet could be seen as a poor man's version of a lower/better carb/insulin diet, as Tom Naughton pointed out on his blog about that n=1.

    The Mountain Dew Diet, on the other hand, (what I'm proposing) would absolutely lead to increased insulin secretion but decreased calorie consumption. It would be much more orthogonal. You'd have to track cals carefully, of course!

    So that's my challenge. "Do the Dew" for 3 months -- 70-80% of calories from liquid sugar and keep calories LOW -- and see whether you gain or lose fat.

    I'd bet you'd gain serious fat, even if you forced yourself to go to the gym AND starved yourself, because cals would be shunted into the fat tissue no matter what. So your BMR would plunge (you'd have no energy) and you'd start to catabolize muscle and organ tissue to meet the energy deficit instead of fat. but that's just my guess.

    Okay, I can't promise to respond more today b/c I gots shizzle to do, but I do enjoy seeing people engage with these ideas. And I have faith that everyone here just wants to see positive change in the world and that we WILL (collectively, somehow) eventually reach a detente.

    Meow,

    Adam
    Adam, you are arguing against what has been tested and proven over and over again the last hundred years, on both animals and humans! Your N=1 experiment is beyond retarded; but of course it could be done if the testing subjects have enough body fat to spare for a period of 90 days. Take five obese persons that volunteers and put them in an obesity asy...., ahem… controlled environment and give each of those two liter(68 oz) of Coca-Cola or similar soft drink per day, and guess what - they will all lose huge amounts of weight, and fat also!

    Make it a wager if you want, like a million dollars to the winner side, with a part to the five obese volunteers, that if they lose weight on the Coca-Cola diet, then the CICO team wins and becomes a million dollars richer, and vice versa if no weight loss then they pay the million to the anti-CICO team!

  8. #278
    AdamK's Avatar
    AdamK is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    california
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorbag View Post
    Adam, you are arguing against what has been tested and proven over and over again the last hundred years, on both animals and humans! Your N=1 experiment is beyond retarded; but of course it could be done if the testing subjects have enough body fat to spare for a period of 90 days. Take five obese persons that volunteers and put them in an obesity asy...., ahem… controlled environment and give each of those two liter(68 oz) of Coca-Cola or similar soft drink per day, and guess what - they will all lose huge amounts of weight, and fat also!

    Make it a wager if you want, like a million dollars to the winner side, with a part to the five obese volunteers, that if they lose weight on the Coca-Cola diet, then the CICO team wins and becomes a million dollars richer, and vice versa if no weight loss then they pay the million to the anti-CICO team!
    Dude, that wager idea is brilliant. Someone needs to arrange this.

  9. #279
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorbag View Post
    Adam, you are arguing against what has been tested and proven over and over again the last hundred years, on both animals and humans! Your N=1 experiment is beyond retarded; but of course it could be done if the testing subjects have enough body fat to spare for a period of 90 days. Take five obese persons that volunteers and put them in an obesity asy...., ahem… controlled environment and give each of those two liter(68 oz) of Coca-Cola or similar soft drink per day, and guess what - they will all lose huge amounts of weight, and fat also!
    68 ounces of Coca-Cola? How about a more reasonable 2,250 kCal/day isocaloric diet made up of 70% Coca~Cola, which would be in line with the thought experiment (tm) he's actually proposing? Put another group on a Primal diet of the same calorie intake and watch for any differences between the two groups. What do you think would happen? Identical changes in body composition? That's the "CICO" that we're arguing against (again, NOT the law of thermodynamics, which nobody but looneys dispute).

    Quote Originally Posted by Gorbag View Post
    Make it a wager if you want, like a million dollars to the winner side, with a part to the five obese volunteers, that if they lose weight on the Coca-Cola diet, then the CICO team wins and becomes a million dollars richer, and vice versa if no weight loss then they pay the million to the anti-CICO team!
    But you're the only one contributing to this thread who has a million spare dollars to spend. Too bad you're piddling it all away on organic limes.

  10. #280
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    3,709
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamK View Post
    Dude, that wager idea is brilliant. Someone needs to arrange this.
    Maybe the Coca-Cola Company could help in sponsoring it, to prove that even Coke can make people lose weight? Would give them very good publisity...

Page 28 of 44 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... 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
  •