I’m not arguing the laws of thermodynamics, that’s @gabe baby but I am supporting Dr. Phinney’s opinion that reducing dietary fat without increasing hunger may be a solution to help weight loss. I never said anything about CICO. n=1. My apologies to the OP for getting way off topic.
70% fat,25% protein ,5% cabs macro rations. is that in grams or calories?
MiKetoAF
(Mike W.)
#66
Do you want to “win” as you referenced to Anniegirl or do you want to prove that CICO is not a myth?
tdean
(Terence Dean)
#67
Where do you get this idea that I’m a champion for the CICO model? I’m not but if you wish to label Dr. Phinney’s statements as pro CICO take it up with him.
I’m under 20gs a day for carbs, my protein is within or close enough to my protein macros for my weight and height, my dietary fat is 100% of my macro - minus a deficit. Where’s the CICO model in that? Those CICO models do not restrict carbs as low as Keto, and they still promote the government position of eating less fat (lo fat is good), and I’ve no idea what their protein requirements are. To label me as a CICO is a stretch, and I’m not here to prove that CICO is superior to Keto as you imply.
Anniegirl9
(LeeAnn Brooks)
#68
I believe the confusion is because your comments jumped into a bit of a debate on the matter, so it was natural to assume that you were taking the pro-CICO side as you were responding to my anti-CICO comments.
It was a natural conclusion, albeit obviously the wrong one.
tdean
(Terence Dean)
#69
Ok that’s fair enough, I apologize if my comments appeared that way. No I am all for Keto otherwise I would have left in the first week but I do think we need to keep an open mind because there’s always an exception, maybe its genetics, or hidden health conditions that affects what happens to our bodies on a Ketogenic diet. I don’t wish to push any ideals or information down anyone’s throat. I love to read what anyone has to say about this WOE because I can learn something from their point of view, even if I don’t agree.
PaulL
(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing)
#70
Whoa! The laws of thermodynamics unquestionably exist, just like the laws of gravity and of motion. We may change our understanding of how they work, but we are never going to suddenly discover that they don’t exist, any more than we are going to wake up and find that the mass of the earth is no longer capable of attracting us to it.
Think of the laws of thermodynamics as the universe’s balance sheet: capital always equals assets plus liabilities, no matter what. The books must always balance. The amount of capital shown on your personal balance sheet can change, but not the balance sheet for the entire world economy. Likewise our body can gain or lose energy (i.e., grow fat or thin), but the total amount of energy in the universe never changes, it merely changes its form.
The reason our body can gain or lose energy is that it is not a closed system. It can be an island of negative entropy only because the total entropy of the universe is increasing around it to compensate, and it can gain or lose energy only because energy is coming in from or going out into the universe at large. Likewise, if you want to grow richer, money has to come from somewhere at a rate greater than you are spending it. And if you should for some reason decide to spend down your net worth, then the money has to go somewhere at a rate greater than it is coming in.
You cannot possibly get poorer (thinner) as long as the total of your income from all sources (food) exceeds the total of all your expenses (metabolism), and you cannot possibly get richer (fatter) as long as your total expenses (metabolism) exceed the money (food) coming in. If the body is gaining weight, its balance sheet has to show greater energy intake than energy expenditure, and if it’s losing weight its balance sheet has to show greater energy expenditure than intake. That’s just the way the universe works. The point is not that you are growing thinner because you are eating less; you are eating less because your body is growing thinner. But you have to be eating less, whether you believe you are or not.
Anniegirl9
(LeeAnn Brooks)
#71
I think the problem is there’s too much about CO that can’t be controlled or even measured. The body finds way to compensate for a lowering of CI. The law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. The human body is not a closed system. It reacts to outside stimuli that can effect hormonal balances, which can disrupt caloric expenditure. [quote=“PaulL, post:70, topic:48255”]
Whoa! The laws of thermodynamics unquestionably exist, just like the laws of gravity and of motion.
[/quote]
Sure, they exist, but they are irrelevant to the application of the human body. It’s not simply a two sided equation. There is another option the body has besides CO, and that’s fat storage. So energy is applied to fat storage. Technically the energy is not lost, so your thermodynamics is still in tact, but it throws a wrench in the CICO equation.
gabe
(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” )
#72
With due respect to those on the alleged “other side:”
- Nobody is “pro-CICO” here.
- All of us agree that LCHF seems to work.
- Those of us pointing out that the laws of thermodynamics apply to ALL systems are simply stating a basic physical law. The human body obeys those laws whether you like it or not.
- Acknowledging that calories in and calories out matter is not the same as being “pro-CICO.” You’ll find that everyone in the LCHF/keto space of any note — including, and especially, Gary Taubes — starts from the premise that CICO is obviously true but doesn’t explain why we get fat. That is, it doesn’t explain anything about the mechanism of fat regulation.
- I will once again assert the following: if you deny that energy in vs energy out is irrelevant, and that the human body doesn’t obey the first law of thermodynamics, you are engaging in anti-scientific, magical thinking. No matter what Jason Fung may have once said.
Anyway, I think that engaging further in this argument may be fruitless. I suppose it’s fine if you want to believe in the keto fairy; I just thought this community had more of an interest in basing itself in science. That’s what, to me, makes this lifestyle more than just a fad diet.
PaulL
(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing)
#73
Perhaps my favorite Dr. Westman line would be appropriate here: “Calories do count; but we shouldn’t count them.” 
davee77
(David)
#76
I have to say that people who think they can calculate CICO is a little naive. You can not predict how and how much energy the body uses, all the hormones, insulin and so on, simply to many factors. The body will keep you alive and try to function as optimal as possible. The body is not stupid, if you lower the energy intake, it will lower the energy consumption to keep you alive. If your insulin is high, you cannot access body fat and so on, so many factors you cant calculate them all. I eat as close to 0 carbs as possible, and about 100g protein. I eat as much fat that I can, sometimes 3000 kcal sometimes 5000 kcal, and I do IF everyday. I have lost about 30 kg. I think most people would say I have a “perfect body”, lean and cut, and I only workout about 2 hours a week.
atomicspacebunny
(Bunny)
#77
…or
CALORIES (units of energy)
UNIT OF ENERGY TABLE (per gram):
•CARBOHYDRATE 4 units
•FAT 9 units
•PROTEIN 4 units
Whenever I see or hear people counting calories it reminds me of this corny Crystal Light Commercial Early 80’s…lol🤣
“…it’s hard to believe there is only 4 calories a glass!”
atomicspacebunny
(Bunny)
#78
Second law of thermodynamics: The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. The total entropy can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium), or is undergoing a reversible process?
davee77
(David)
#79
It is irrelevant in regards to weight loss. Because it is relevant what the body does with the energy, not how much it gets. Insulin levels and metabolism is much more important.
Will it get out again unused, stored or get used. The body does of course obey the physical laws.
atomicspacebunny
(Bunny)
#80
Second law of thermodynamics: The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system[1]can never decrease over time. The total entropy can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium), or is undergoing a reversible process?
Footnote:
[1] The human body?
Robert_Johnson
(Consensus is Politics)
#81
Indeed. I’m going to have to finish this thread before chiming in. Show me the science people. I already know that I’ve been losing weight since starting keto, and eating about 500 to 1,000 calories more than I used to. Two differences are…
(1) it’s one meal a day (well, two of you count my coffee, and that’s about 500 calories right there, so I guess it should be counted)
(2) I eat no carbs. Well, a LOT LESS than 20 grams. As far as I can tell, less than 5.
This should be an interesting read.
PaulL
(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing)
#82
As even Dr. Phinney points out, the first law of thermodynamics is not “irrelevant.” That is the word I object to. The first law is not the only thing operating in this situation, it’s more complex than that, yes, but it still applies. If you like, say that it’s not the only relevant factor, or say that people are applying it wrongly to the situation, both of which are very true, but do not say that it is irrelevant. If you do, you make us ridiculous, and people who need to hear us will stop listening.
Here is an illustration: In Earth orbit, the effect of gravity is not felt, but it is not irrelevant to the situation. If you ignore the effect of gravity, your satellite will either crash and burn, or fly off into space. Gravity doesn’t apply to the situation in the same way we are accustomed to, down here on the Earth, but it is not irrelevant.
gabe
(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” )
#83
Your total energy intake is less than your total energy expenditure. The Carbohydrate-Insulin Model (ie keto/LCHF) does not claim that the human body is exempt from the laws of nature.
This doesn’t mean you have to count calories. But either your metabolic rate is now higher, or you’re eating fewer calories than you think you are, or some other process is going on in the body whereby the energy consumed isn’t being metabolized and is somehow being “wasted.” Either way, CI<CO if you’re losing fat.
