I can balance that equation all day long without fat needing to come into the equation (outlined below).
The basic premise of CICO model is that 1. for a given energy expenditure, you need a given energy intake (this is true), 2. if you then reduce the intake you can make up the energy difference with fat so that the equation balances (this is also true). These are written as;
Ver 1. 2000kcal in = 2000kcal out
Ver 2. (1500kcal food + 500kcal fat) in = 2000 kcal out.
Where the model goes bust is thus; there is a third way to balance the equation, you simply reduce the expenditure by the same amount as you reduced the intake. written as;
Ver 3. (2000kcal - 500kcal) in = (2000kcal - 500kcal) out
See the success of the model hinges on the organism (not machine) strictly following version 2. But the model forgets that the organism (us) is an independent thinker, with a sub consious energy system that can & does use version 3 as well as version 2.
Usually what happens to us when we use the CICO model is, we kick in our conscious minds and force Ver 2. upon our selves, we get some initial fat loss in the first few weeks, but slowly (for various reasons) our subconscious energy survival response may start using Ver 3. more and more, resulting in little to no fat loss. Then you get a big MDA forum battle and nobody really comes out any the wiser. Except maybe you, right now, after reading that
Last edited by dilberryhoundog; 06-17-2013 at 01:51 AM.
A little primal gem - My Success Story
Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)
Last edited by sting; 06-17-2013 at 03:25 AM.
Yes, CICO is a very "nature must follow our over-simplified rigid human logical rules" sort of model which implies all you do is "eat less and exercise more" and nature must do what you say; lose weight. But it just doesn't work in practice, cause nature doesn't agree.
The body's base energy expenditure is indeed a big piece. You eat less, your body adapts and your energy decreases, and you don't lose weight. But what really tweaks people's minds is the theory that you eat a lot (of carbs), but your energy decreases (the stereotypical lazy fat person eating coke and pizza dough), because nature grabs a % of these incoming calories and deposits them direct to fat thus decreasing the calories available to you as energy (because you are eating starvation foods and nature is trying to help you out).
People ripped on me for starting this thread, but I maintain that CICO is really stupid, masquerading as being smart.
bugs me when people say "paleo is low carb" etc. paleo is a list of materials, not a blueprint. nor does it demonize any macronutrient, only food choices.
I doubt many people wouldn't see success doing the following (+ lifting heavy 3 times a week)
eat lots and lots of animal proteins. Looking to gain muscle? Eat fattier cuts. Losing fat? Minimize the fatty cuts.
eat lots and lots of potatoes and rice, especially post workout.
eat lots and lots of vegetables & some fruits. Looking to gain weight? Eat less veggies, you need the room for caloric dense foods. Losing weight? Eat more, they will curb your hunger.
None of this "add butter to everything", "eat bacon with every meal" nonsense.
Protein is the most important macronutrient for many reasons like satiety, muscle building & repair, not readily converted to body fat, etc etc... followed by carbs to fuel your activities. Fat then plays a role in rest & recovery from those activities. Prioritize appropriately.
pretty simple way to either be in a caloric surplus / caloric deficit, at least seems that way to me.
Paleo is whatever you make of it, the macrocomposition of your meals should be up to you... not the typical low carb bs I read on here.
However, this video that was linked to those two awful videos is EXCELLENT.
Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.
If you're interested in my (very) occasional updates on how I'm working out and what I'm eating click here.
Dr. Eades Quote: As you may recall from the earlier post, a lowered insulin levels opens the door to the fat cells, allowing fat to come out to be burned. If your dietary intake meets all your body’s energy needs, however, your body will simply use these dietary calories and leave the calories in your fat cells alone. And you won’t lose. But lowered insulin levels pretty much prevents fat from going into the fat cells, so even if your caloric intake goes up – as long as your insulin stays low – you won’t store more fat in the fat cells. And your weight will stay the same.http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/weight-loss/low-carb-and-calories-part-2/If you crank up your intake of fat calories and at the same time increase your carb intake you are going to gain like crazy. Why? Because you will increase your insulin levels and drive this fat into the fat cells. And it will happen quickly.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matterPeter Attia Quote"Let’s get back to the question you actually want to know the answer to. Do calories “matter”, and should you be counting them?
Energy density (calories) of food does matter, for sure, but what matters much more is what that food does in and to our bodies. Will the calories we consume create an environment in our bodies where we want to consume more energy than we expend? Will the calories we consume create an environment in which our bodies prefer to store excess nutrients as fat rather than mobilize fat? These are the choices we make every time we put something in our mouth.
Last edited by sting; 06-20-2013 at 06:27 AM.