Page 38 of 44 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 ... LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 440

Thread: "Calories in / Calories Out" -- Please Stop the Madness page 38

  1. #371
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,606
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumroll View Post
    "Calories in, calories out" works perfectly, in the context of a healthy metabolism. Period.

    But not everyone has a healthy metabolism and there is a lot more going on inside the human body than we can ever know for each individual person without a ton of lab tests and the like.
    So if a person no longer has a healthy metabolism calories don't matter? It's always calories in/calories out regardless of your "metabolism." People that struggle losing weight simply can't undereat their hunger. That doesn't mean CICO no longer exists. It means you better fix your thyroid, adrenals, nutrient deficiencies or fix whatever other problem you have so you can manage a deficit for weight loss.

    The "broken metabolism" excuse is just that - an excuse. Metabolisms don't "break." If your metabolism is broken, you're dead.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  2. #372
    Drumroll's Avatar
    Drumroll is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    So if a person no longer has a healthy metabolism calories don't matter? It's always calories in/calories out regardless of your "metabolism." People that can't lose weight simply can't undereat their hunger. That doesn't mean CICO no longer exists. It means you better fix your thyroid, adrenals, nutrient deficiencies or fix whatever other problem you have so you can manage a deficit for weight loss.
    Sometimes people have to accept that they need to get "healthy" before they can lose the weight. If their metabolism is broken or damaged in some way, this may even mean gaining some weight while you concentrate on introducing exercise into your lifestyle and eating healthy to slowly fix and regulate thyroid, adrenal, and other hormones in your body. And because different people have different issues, they will react to different types of diets in different ways. The "miracle" for one person may not be quite the miracle for someone else.

    Everyone is different and the solutions to our problems will, likewise, come in different forms.

  3. #373
    dilberryhoundog's Avatar
    dilberryhoundog is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    545
    Gorbag
    I pretty much agree.

    I will say this tho. An obese person will be burning fat all day, from their Mcdonalds or fries or pizza. How much fat over the years do they actually cycle in and out of their adipose stores daily though? maybe a little at the end of sleep when the glucose from their midnight ice cream snack and from their liver stores has finally depleted.

    What is the standard obese persons "go to" method for accessing fat (energy)? Is it from their vast reserves? nope, Its through their mouths. It's easy, it's efficient, It's a learned habit. The ability is there to burn fat but it is not utilised, what happens to things that are under utilized? they atrophy.

    Why is this? well I've explained before, there is 2 ways to balance CI=CO. One is by adding fat from stores, if faced with a defecit from either side. The other is by raising energy ingested if their is a calorie output increase or decreasing energy output if their is a calorie deficit on the input side. The second one mentioned is the go to for an obese person, they will default to this because its what they know, it's how they have done it for years, their food craving and exercise lethargy pathways are well worn.

    If they want to lose fat they have to become comfortable with an energy deficit, they have to train themselves to trust that their metabolisms can make the energy from reserves and that they don't just need to have that midnight ice-cream snack to energize them selfs. This metabolic training needs to happen slowly and methodiaclly because If faced with a big challenge like a regular daily large energy defecit (like CICO CW), the obese persons brain will just default back to what it knows best. This is very similar to if your just starting out on your weight lifting program. Start small and controllable you can't do a 400 pound dead lift in your first week.

    So (this isn't specifically to you Gorbag) you can't just throw a CICO CW deficit daily at an obese person. they will fail. They need metabolic training first. It's not that their fat burning systems aren't there. Its that they don't trust their body to do its thing, so they get in first and throw the energy down their gullets.
    Build the trust, get comfortable with your body burning fat, give your self some metabolic rest (no deficits for a day or 2), exercise your fat burning, while not fighting your brain to add moar food (eg time larger meals further apart). Once you got all that happening then you can challenge your adonis metabolism further by increasing your calorie deficit.
    A little primal gem - My Success Story
    Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

  4. #374
    70in2012's Avatar
    70in2012 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    398
    Law of conservation of energy (pretty much every physical principle is derived from that assumption) is so basic that it is not useful as an explanation. It is like saying Rafa Nadal hits ton of top spin because of law of conservation of momentum. True, but not really an useful explanation.

    It is an identity. Like the Assets = Liabilities + Equity kind of balance sheet accounting identity. How useful is the explanation that the firm's equity is high because Assets > Liabilities?

    Since digestive efficiencies, metabolism vary across individuals and it is so difficult to control or properly measure all the variables influencing the so called energy balance, i would rather use changes in weight to determine whether there was a calorific deficit or excess and not the other way around.
    I laughed when i read about a study involving motion detecting underwears to account for "missing calories" post fact to justify the change in weight.
    Few but ripe.

  5. #375
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,951
    Quote Originally Posted by 70in2012 View Post
    Law of conservation of energy (pretty much every physical principle is derived from that assumption) is so basic that it is not useful as an explanation. It is like saying Rafa Nadal hits ton of top spin because of law of conservation of momentum. True, but not really an useful explanation.

    It is an identity. Like the Assets = Liabilities + Equity kind of balance sheet accounting identity. How useful is the explanation that the firm's equity is high because Assets > Liabilities?

    Since digestive efficiencies, metabolism vary across individuals and it is so difficult to control or properly measure all the variables influencing the so called energy balance, i would rather use changes in weight to determine whether there was a calorific deficit or excess and not the other way around.
    I laughed when i read about a study involving motion detecting underwears to account for "missing calories" post fact to justify the change in weight.
    +many

  6. #376
    KimchiNinja's Avatar
    KimchiNinja is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Seoul
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by magicmerl View Post
    Yeah, no. Your qualitative descriptions are for the most part wrong.

    I think that the person who pointed out that CICO was true but meaningless for people seeking health / weight loss had it correct.
    And so 1) specifically how are my qualitative decriptions wrong, and 2) if CICO is meaningless, which it is, then what is the meaningful formula?

    I'm guessing you have no idea to both 1 and 2.

  7. #377
    KimchiNinja's Avatar
    KimchiNinja is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Seoul
    Posts
    1,253
    When you actually think about it (not saying people actually think, but if they did), isn't "calories in / calories out" really just propaganda? And effective propaganda in that it is "science".

    It sounds nice, but really doesn't mean anything.

  8. #378
    KimchiNinja's Avatar
    KimchiNinja is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Seoul
    Posts
    1,253
    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.

    Adam
    Excellent post.

    I'd bet they'd get serious fat too, and a massive decrease in stable long-term energy, just a bunch of spiky sugar rushes, and crashes, with fat accumulation piling on every day, and with muscle loss tossed in to make it ever better!

    Basically the American experience, but amplified.

  9. #379
    KimchiNinja's Avatar
    KimchiNinja is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Seoul
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Zach View Post
    I dont understand how anyone can believe that carbohydrates alone cause insulin resistance. I know in this little primal bubble, it seem like low carb is the majority but in the real world, a high carb diet consisting of 50% calories from carbohydrates is the vast majority. Entire countries that contain most of the worlds population eat this way with out any sign of insulin resistance or obesity.
    I can explain, and will.

    These tribes did not have high sugar and white flour consumption. Once sugar was introduced they were screwd, every single time. Once screwed they can't necessarily go back to their "healthy" carb ways. It's not just the amount of carbs, it's about the speed of the carbs.

  10. #380
    Drumroll's Avatar
    Drumroll is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by KimchiNinja View Post
    I can explain, and will.

    These tribes did not have high sugar and white flour consumption. Once sugar was introduced they were screwd, every single time. Once screwed they can't necessarily go back to their "healthy" carb ways. It's not just the amount of carbs, it's about the speed of the carbs.
    I get what you're saying from a personal perspective, but might I suggest you use the word "quality" over the word "speed"?

    I mean who could logically argue with this statement:

    "Sweet potatoes are a more quality source of carbs than wheat."

    Even most high carb eaters would have to reluctantly agree if they looked at the facts.

Page 38 of 44 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 ... 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
  •