Page 7 of 32 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 318

Thread: ChocoTaco369, this is for you: page 7

  1. #61
    AMonkey's Avatar
    AMonkey is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    771
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by Akraw View Post
    Hey ChocoTaco,

    I have been reading Mark's Daily Apple for a year now and I just wanted to say that I COULD NOT DISAGREE WITH YOU MORE regarding losing weight by lowering caloric intake…
    I imagine other people have responded to you in depth, but I’m at work with nothing to do, so yay!

    1. Most people under report their calorie intake significantly, which is often why people who try to calorie restrict fail. Eating out makes it harder to estimate calories since you have no idea how much fat or sugar is put into your foods. Watch the show Secret Eaters on Youtube for an idea of how inaccurate people can be, or read studies like these:
    Cambridge Journals Online - British Journal of Nutrition - Abstract - The validity of self-reported energy intake as determined using the doubly labelled water technique
    Elsevier
    2. CICO is not a static, simple formula. When you lose weight you need less calories to maintain that weight, among various other factors. Read this post by Lyle McDonald:
    The Energy Balance Equation | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald
    3. Citation needed for all those claims about ‘terrible food choices’.

    Yes, what you eat can affect CICO but there are no magic foods that make weight change significantly harder or easier. Calorie input/output is the ultimate determinant of body weight change and the food composition is a minor factor. At the end of the day all diets work by you eating less than your body needs.
    http://lifemutt.blogspot.sg/ - Gaming, Food Reviews and Life in Singapore

  2. #62
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Timthetaco View Post
    Glad we're all in agreement that CICO is true and influenced by a number of factors, despite the people who end up disappointed when their "calorie math" doesn't end up working. But...

    You don't need thermodynamics to explain why he gained more weight from the second experiment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe his primary source of carbohydrate was white flour, which is very quickly and easily absorbed, unlike almonds, which was his primary source of fat in the first experiment.
    really? I would have thought that the bulk of his calories came from the eggs, salmon, mackerel and steak that he was eating.

    And if almonds are 'poorly absorbed', then does that mean a calorie is not a calorie when you ingest it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Timthetaco View Post
    Add that to the fact that he ate something like 130 grams of fat along with it, which all ends up in adipose tissue in the context of overeating carbohydrates.
    Why did he put on the fat when eaten with carbs, but not when eating with other fat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Timthetaco View Post
    So not only was he glycogen replete the entire time, which surely led to a decent amount of gluconeogenesis, he stored a quarter pound of dietary fat every day, guaranteed. As opposed to eating "5000 calories" of poorly absorbed almonds on a ketogenic diet, which leads to loss of water weight as well.
    I think that the water weight thing is a red herring since that won't last for the whole month.

    Quote Originally Posted by Timthetaco View Post
    It's easy to get the results you want when you know how insulin works. It's really only fair to compare an extremely low carb diet with an extremely low fat diet with an experiment like that. Or maybe he doesn't know how insulin works and it just happened to work out to his advantage anyway.
    But isn't the whole point of CICO that it doesn't matter what the source of the calories is? A calorie is a calorie is a calorie?
    Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

    Griff's cholesterol primer
    5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
    Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
    TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
    bloodorchid is always right

  3. #63
    Akraw's Avatar
    Akraw is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Amherst MA
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by not on the rug View Post
    You're not going to do very well here.
    First off, I wasn't flaming.

    Definition from Wiki: "Flaming, also known as bashing, is hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users, often involving the use of profanity."

    I wasn't bashing, hostile, or swearing at Choco. I was stating that I DISAGREED with his variety of posts where he claims that CICO is the sole reason for gaining and losing weight. And furthermore, perhaps I DON'T wanna stick around these forums if it means conversing with people like you who say things like I should be BANNED for DISAGREEING with a member of this community. What does an internet forum exist for if not for debate and the proliferation of knowledge and understanding? BANNED? REALLY? A little touchy, aren't we?! And it wasn't even directed at you. It's to Choco. You need to chill out, Rug.

  4. #64
    Wildrose's Avatar
    Wildrose is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Calgary Alberta
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Eureka5280 View Post
    Please enlighten me with your metaphysical view of how our bodies magically disobey the laws of thermodynamics. Do our calories sail away into the ether when we eat nothing but steak and eggs and liver?
    The problem with this is that a calorie is not a calorie. Go look up the article on gnolls.org about it. If you eat, oh, powdered food you will put on weight even if it has the exact same caloric composition as regular food. That was one of the things I remember from it. Also, a calorie is the energy derived from a unit of food burned in a fire. We do not have a fire in our bellies, so calories are always a grossly inaccurate way to measure food units. It's just the best we have. So please stop with the law of thermodynamics, the human body is just too complex to be trotting that out.

  5. #65
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by magicmerl View Post
    really? I would have thought that the bulk of his calories came from the eggs, salmon, mackerel and steak that he was eating.

    And if almonds are 'poorly absorbed', then does that mean a calorie is not a calorie when you ingest it?
    So I misspoke about the almonds. My bad. But to answer your question, yes, a calorie is not a calorie when you ingest it, because the food you eat is not in the form of calories. A calorie is a measure of heat, so a calorie doesn't come into play until your food is broken down, absorbed and oxidized.

    Why did he put on the fat when eaten with carbs, but not when eating with other fat?
    Because of insulin's effect on the body's fuel selection. In a mixed diet, the body preferentially oxidizes carbohydrates for energy, and the effect is upregulated when overeating carbohydrates. When you restrict carbohydrates, your body uses more dietary fat for energy, and you don't have glycogen reserves to draw on. Seems likely to me he was oxidizing and excreting more fat than he was storing.

    I think that the water weight thing is a red herring since that won't last for the whole month.
    Fair enough, but it might have had an effect on his body composition.

    But isn't the whole point of CICO that it doesn't matter what the source of the calories is? A calorie is a calorie is a calorie?
    It doesn't matter the source of the calorie once the energy in the food reaches the TCA cycle. Which is why calorie math doesn't always work, especially for people who know nothing about nutrition. But we're all a bit past that at this point, aren't we?

  6. #66
    zoebird's Avatar
    zoebird is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    8,090
    calories do count. you have to get enough -- not too much, not too little. Just right. Goldilocks style.

  7. #67
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Timthetaco View Post
    Because of insulin's effect on the body's fuel selection. In a mixed diet, the body preferentially oxidizes carbohydrates for energy, and the effect is upregulated when overeating carbohydrates. When you restrict carbohydrates, your body uses more dietary fat for energy, and you don't have glycogen reserves to draw on. Seems likely to me he was oxidizing and excreting more fat than he was storing.
    His high fat diet still included 85g of carbs a day. Wouldn't anything south of 500g fail to fill glycogen stores?

    At what point do carbs make you store fat? Why did the excess fat not get stored by the body?

    Does this mean that the carb curve is .... right? (please say no)
    Last edited by magicmerl; 12-11-2013 at 07:59 PM.
    Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

    Griff's cholesterol primer
    5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
    Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
    TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
    bloodorchid is always right

  8. #68
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco Guest
    I can't quantify it, and ultimately it doesn't matter, because stored dietary fat doesn't stay in adipose tissue forever. The carb curve is wrong because Mark was operating under Taubes's false insulin theory when he created it (I think?). Insulin does have an effect on fat storage and energy selection, but it's not what most people claim. Don't take my word for it; there's lots of free information on Pubmed.

  9. #69
    dilberryhoundog's Avatar
    dilberryhoundog is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    550
    Many moons ago before the "carb wars" there was the "CICO wars", a new monster thread would pop up every few days which would split the MDA user base in half over calories. Choco used to go into bat for the "CICO is king" side, others used to argue him on the "CICO = fail" side. These raged veheminously for months until on one monster thread I made a STAND...

    not for either side but for the middle ground. I said...

    The first law of thermodynamics is absolutely irrefutable. but. While CI is fairly easy to calculate and control, The CO portion of the equation is very fluid and the human body will often move the CO goal posts. The human body has ways of balancing CICO (all mathematical equations need to be balanced) that we cant even imagine or observe.

    Choco tried to argue it with me for a few weeks, but that middle ground ideal stuck, and both "sides" basically agreed to adopt it as a good understanding of the calorie situation. Now CICO wars don't exist, Thank god.

    I can see where the OP might get the idea that choco was all for CICO because he did defend it fairly strongly in his own way I would say that now choco would agree with the statement I made above. The only thing I see him disputing is that he was strongly in favor of CICO. he would say he originated the whole idea of a variable CICO.
    A little primal gem - My Success Story
    Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

  10. #70
    FrenchFry's Avatar
    FrenchFry is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    world
    Posts
    1,343
    It gets funny around here
    OK, here is my view on this not so important matter:
    Using CICO for weight management is like using a wet finger to measure an outdoor temperature. You can certainly say whether it is colder or warmer than last time you did it (more or less, depends on your own finger temp as well) but you cannot really be precise. Moreover, one has to measure or appreciate the CICO principle over a long period of time because the metabolism is not a strictly predictable engine that always give the same output. It depends on your body state (sleep, stress, etc), on whether your are digesting or not, on the hormonal messaging, work-out intensity, etc. If I eat X amount of foods, yeah, I can roughly guess (just like with a wet finger and temp) using the kCal figures whether I have a chance to maintain or not. But that's about it: I can at best guesstimate. If I keep eating a lot of kCals over a certain amount of time without changing anything else, my guesstimate will probably be better. CICO must be used with precaution on a too narrow timeline.

    And to finish, I don't think it is important at all. Some find it a useful tool, I personally don't care about it. If I find myself gaining bad weight, I would know what to do: potato hack diet for a few days

Page 7 of 32 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •