I am trying to find an answer to my problem and this thread is only making things a lot more confusing. Even Robb wolf is starting to contradict himself! Low Carb and Paleo: My Thoughts Part 1
I will avoid posting my issue my log post on this thread, however, if anyone feels that they can come back to me with an argument that works then I am all for it because less than 50g of carbs doesnt seem to work and i am not consuming a million calories a day. I am neither gaining nor losing weight anymore, but what is noticeable is my fat is not dropping and my face and stomach are more bloated than ever.
you can access my post here: Body Fat drop stopped - PaleoHacks.com
No doubt he has a reason for deliberately mischaracterizing the alternate hypothesis in this way. Or perhaps it's because he is a lightning rod for crazies and likes to argue with people who are wrong on the internet (which I've seen him do). That can totally distort a person's view of the minds of people around them.
I was bored in the office today, improved my CICO formula.
[E-in, (Fat + Protein + Carb) * Hunger Factor] - [E-out, Base Metabolic Rate + Exercise +/- Chg Pooping] = (Fat Mass Chg + Lean Mass Chg)
Included pooping!!! When you eat more you don't gain as much as CICO predicts because your body manages this with increased pooping. When you eat less you don't lose as much as CICO predicts because your body works the food more efficiently and you poop less.
Trying to work in macro nutrients on the left and tie that to body composition on the right:
* When you eat mostly meat/vegi and no white carbs your metabolic rate increases (to where it should be), thus you can eat more without gaining fat. Materials give opportunity for muscle gain.
* When you eat mostly white carbs calories are partitioned directly into fat mass increases, leaving less for energy and muscle gain (because you are eating starvation foods), you therefore gain weight even when not eating much and look slothlike. You have less energy now, because you got cheated by nature, you thus eat more, and gain even more fat mass. Materials tend to drive fat gain.
Hunger Factor: this is a new tweak. Eating more carbs cranks up insulin and tells you to eat more, hunger factor increases to say 1.2, maybe 1.8, you go crazy and clean out the fridge. Eating ketogenic turns off insulin, making you forget about food, you eat less, say 0.8.
Meh, it's a work in progress, but it incorporates hunger, and poop, way better than "eat less, exercise more".
Last edited by KimchiNinja; 06-13-2013 at 03:41 AM.
You are forgetting the thermogenic effect of foods, depending on meal size and duration of inter-prandial periods (basically the time when your insulin is back to baseline until your next meal).
These two factors alter CICO. You can also add amount and quality of sleep, stress levels ... this gets really hairy ...
On stress I would suggest nature does what it does because when you have meat you are safe, no stress, body increases metabolic rate and uses calories without care. When you have no meat and eat crappy grains, your body gets stressed, these are starvation foods, and thus slows down metabolic rate. So there is a form of stress baked into the model, but not all types of stress, true.
Never thought about sleep.
Wish I could quit my day job, I could work on this for at least a year, trying to boil the complex down to something simple, but useful...
Yeah, it is a complex problem and you can only come up with a simplified model which may describe your case well, but not me for example. But it is fascinating and you learn a lot of things on the way.
The thermogenic effect of foods has to do with the fact that digestion takes energy And protein is the most thermogenic macro. So if you eat a lot of protein, you will probably feel very warm because it takes some energy to digest it, more than for fats and carbs. I know that 1g of protein amounts to 4Cal in a calorimetric chamber measuring these things but in your body, you will lose ~ 1Cal digesting it so in effect you get ~ 3Cal for 1g of digested protein. Moreover, the bigger the meal size, the more thermogenic the food is. And how can you have a BIG meal without feeling like you are binging on foods all day long ? By not eating all day long (cf. IF).
I forgot to mention that there is another problem with the CICO model: it only looks at the energy aspect, nothing else. But foods and digestion affects the hormonal system and balance, and some brain functions that are low level and regulate many down-stream processes. When I look at my meals and their macro partition, if I ate 3 meals a day partitioned like my single meal a day, I would definitely grow fat because I eat a mix of carbs / fats / proteins which would keep my insulin levels rather high all day long. My only fat loss time window would be sleep time, provided that I go to bed after insulin went back to baseline. But since I fast for 20hours / day, I mostly run on fat all that time and can have whatever I want (provided that it is primal'ish because I prefer food quality and proper nutrition rather than junk food!) during my single meal. CICO does not take these subtleties into account ...
Also don't forget that when your muscles have been stimulated by a change in exercise volume or intensity to grow, a pound of muscle only contains about 660 calories. The idea that a calorie = a calorie is the basis of the CICO oversimplification that states that all calories are interchangeable. The idea that a pound of protein = a pound of fat is clearly incorrect according to those same laws of physics.
So while in theory it may take eating a pound of fat to put on a pound of fat, it would only take eating a pound of lean muscle meat to put on a pound of muscle.
Suppose you do eat that pound of muscle, and that's almost all you eat for the day? You can still put on a pound of muscle, yet the energy calories required for maintenance and energy transaction loss will come out of a few ounces of fat stores. Net gain: still almost a pound. Result: recomposition.
Last edited by eKatherine; 06-13-2013 at 06:16 AM.