Page 44 of 44 FirstFirst ... 34424344
Results 431 to 440 of 440

Thread: "Calories in / Calories Out" -- Please Stop the Madness page 44

  1. #431
    dilberryhoundog's Avatar
    dilberryhoundog is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    542
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by dkJames View Post
    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 ...
    Its more than just subtleties that bust the CI=CO model.

    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)

  2. #432
    sting's Avatar
    sting is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    176


    Last edited by sting; 06-17-2013 at 03:25 AM.

  3. #433
    KimchiNinja's Avatar
    KimchiNinja is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Seoul
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
    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.
    ^ I thought this was smart.

    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.

  4. #434
    Slacker62's Avatar
    Slacker62 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by KimchiNinja View Post
    lower your carbs to 50g and you lose weight no matter your calorie intake or calorie expenditure.
    So all of those healthy, longest-lived people living in the Blue zones around the world are following a low carb diet? Interesting!

  5. #435
    dabears's Avatar
    dabears is offline Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Edmonton AB
    Posts
    79
    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.

  6. #436
    KimchiNinja's Avatar
    KimchiNinja is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Seoul
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker62 View Post
    So all of those healthy, longest-lived people living in the Blue zones around the world are following a low carb diet? Interesting!
    Oh right, the whole misquoting people and stupid one-liners thing. Got it, boring.

    The topic is the usefulness of the CICO formula. Carb/protein content of the diet changes base metabolic rate so it's relevant.

  7. #437
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,606
    Quote Originally Posted by dabears View Post
    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.
    But, I don't eat paleo..... I eat Primal (tm). Carb curve and all
    Last edited by Neckhammer; 06-18-2013 at 05:00 PM.

  8. #438
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,605
    Quote Originally Posted by sting View Post


    These videos flat out suck. They explain nothing - the very lean ectomorph's TDEE suddenly spiked after a few weeks of ultra high calories. No kidding. The carbophobe's thyroid probably finally picked up, and it took 5,000 kcal to do it. Try holding that diet for 6 months...see what happens.

    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.

  9. #439
    Misabi's Avatar
    Misabi is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,681
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    These videos flat out suck. They explain nothing - the very lean ectomorph's TDEE suddenly spiked after a few weeks of ultra high calories. No kidding. The carbophobe's thyroid probably finally picked up, and it took 5,000 kcal to do it. Try holding that diet for 6 months...see what happens.

    However, this video that was linked to those two awful videos is EXCELLENT.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post

    However, this video that was linked to those two awful videos is EXCELLENT.

    It may be excellent, but he lost me at the BS statistic that 95% of all people who have lost weight on a low carb ("or some other trendy kind of" kinda leaves space to manoeuvre...) diet have put it back on within a year. I'd love to believe that I'm a 5%er, but I doubt it.
    If you're interested in my (very) occasional updates on how I'm working out and what I'm eating click here.

    Quote Originally Posted by tfarny View Post
    If you are new to the PB - please ignore ALL of this stuff, until you've read the book, or at least http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-blueprint-101/ and this (personal fave): http://www.archevore.com/get-started/

  10. #440
    sting's Avatar
    sting is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    176
    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.
    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://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/weight-loss/low-carb-and-calories-part-2/

    Peter 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.
    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
    Last edited by sting; 06-20-2013 at 06:27 AM.

Page 44 of 44 FirstFirst ... 34424344

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •