70% fat,25% protein ,5% cabs macro rations. is that in grams or calories?

(bulkbiker) #85

@gabe @PaulL @Shortstuff
I think all we have to do now is agree that unfortunately as we can’t accurately measure CO at home we’re all still left guessing how much we should eat each day…

#86

What about hormones? I don’t believe you can apply thermodynamics to a plate of food and the individual consuming it.

(Allie) #87

TBH @MarkGossage that’s why I tend not to give it any thought and just do what I know works for me, but when people adamantly claim calories HAVE to be restricted to get results, I can’t help myself because I know how much better I felt when I stopped restricting.

(LeeAnn Brooks) #88

How about this:

It’s relevent in that the body will expend energy equal to energy consumed, but it’s irrelevent to weight loss because the energy spent will not always translate to weight loss and there’s no way to control the body’s process to ensure weight loss.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #89

Well, those people are claiming that the calorie restriction is causing the weight loss, whereas the hormonal model claims that it is the weight loss that is causing the reduction in calories. See the difference? I would further claim that any calorie reduction comes about automatically when we eat fat to satiety; there is no need for us to count calories, because the body takes care of everything.

@Anniegirl9 That’s more like it. And you can say exactly the same about weight gain, too. That will really mess with their heads.

#90

Hey Gabe, I don’t know that anyone is arguing that our bodies are exempt from the laws of nature. Speaking only for myself, I’m arguing that there is an inscrutably complex sequence of biochemical processes involved (some of which appear to require a higher CI in order to increase CO even further) and also an inability to measure CO with any useful degree of accuracy. The amount of measurable (at least for now) CO appears not to correlate in a cause-effect fashion with CI, so much as with the nutrient composition of those calories.

…if you’re losing mass of any kind. (That’s my nod to physics, the last one you’ll get. :grin:)

#91

Oh come on, lightweight! Surely we can get this thread to 100 posts! LOL

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #92

:laughing:

In the interests of getting to 100, I will add the following: I think we are all closer to consensus than we were. I think there’s some misunderstanding about what, precisely, the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model means; it seems as if some people are labouring under the mistaken belief (I don’t mean to be rude, but it is) that the very idea of calories/energy, or even any discussion of calories in vs calories out is a complete negation of keto/LCHF.

There is no question that, to gain weight, energy consumed must be greater than energy spent. The reverse is true for weight loss.

The way Taubes puts it is that this is the explanation that the health authorities have been giving for decades, and it’s like saying “Bill Gates is rich because he spent less than he earned.” That’s obvious, and indeed it’s a facile observation – the question is WHY did he earn more than he spent?

Our question is as follows: of COURSE you must consume less than you expend to lose weight. But what’s the mechanism? That’s what the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model of obesity addresses, and that’s where hormones come in. Again, as @PaulL has said, and as Taubes endlessly repeats: we don’t get fat because we eat more. We eat more because we’re getting fat.

On this, there is total consensus here, and with great respect to those of you who think Paul and I are “pro-CICO” – we’re not. We completely agree with you; we are just clarifying that the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model of obesity doesn’t violate the very idea of calories in-calories out. It just doesn’t. It simply adds texture to it (it explains WHY) and it adds nuance (a calories ISN’T a calorie – because each macronutrient, and perhaps even different subtypes of each macronutrient, impacts our hormones differently.)

I think I’m with Paul when he says that he can’t go on debating this any further. If people here would like to believe that they’re losing weight while their calories consumed exceed what they’re expending, they can go right ahead. But this is by definition impossible. What they are experiencing is reduced hunger and/or increased BMR and/or some other metabolic process that has changed due to what they’re consuming. They’re not experiencing a reversal of the first law of thermodynamics.

Personally I am glad we’ve been having this discussion because it’s returned my thinking to my central concern for the past 18 months: why am I stalled? It’s good that we’re getting back to first principles, because the answer must be that my BMR is too low and/or my insulin is getting spiked. I’ve examined this in a number of other threads (though I’ve tried to keep it recently to this one) and the prime culprits, after “too many carbs,” are probably my overconsuming protein and my feeding window being too late.

I’m not sure if the thread has much more staying power; happy to continue the discussion if so. I want to thank you all for the opportunity to clarify my understanding of the science, and, glancing back at the OP, I hope the original poster now knows that if he’s going to count macros (don’t!) then the rule of thumb 70/20/10 (or whatever) split is macronutrient calories, not grams!

EDIT: tagging @richard and @carl because I think this topic got particularly interesting!

(David) #93

The gravity is just a big mass that bend space and time, the sun is so much bigger than the earth, so it bend the space and time around it. To stay in that analogy, because of gravity there is life forms on earth. No! It is required for the earth to cycle around the sun, but it is not why there is life on earth.

As I said you are of course right, as a system we output exactly the amount of energy we get in. But again, it is not relevant when you talk weight loss. Your weight is determined by how much fat the body decides to store, and how much it use, and that is not determined by how much energy you put into the system. I know it would be so easy, and that is why it is so appealing.

(Khara) #94

Thank you. This is well articulated for me and will be helpful in talking with anyone who doesn’t have a basic understanding of Keto. The reason keto works for me is first because of what I put into my body. My calorie count for the day is a result of the what that I put in and thus secondary. It’s a reversal of what I was taught which was to consider calories first. Ironic that a calorie deficit could be the result of eating ad libitum (within the restraints of Keto) while not thinking about calories at all.

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #95

Right – it’s not determined only by how much energy you put into the system, would be a more accurate way of stating it. But certainly overconsumption is a determinant, as far as we can tell given the present state of the science.

#96

Yeah, I agree this is an important caveat. I’ve never thought about the fact that I haven’t seen any actual studies (I mean n > 1) on how much fat someone has to eat to gain body fat when on a severely carb-restricted diet. For some people it appears theoretical, while others swear from their own experience that they already know what it is and they have crossed it before. Have there been any such studies? I suspect that at the extreme levels, even things like small changes in insulin can have an effect so it would have to be a really rigorous study keeping track of all that.

(David) #97

That seems logical, but can you show me the science? Afak some bigger tests shows that if you eat more fat than you need, but is fat adapted, and do IF. Then you actually still lose weight.

Because you burn body fat while you fast, actually raises the metabolism while you eat more fat than needed, and don’t store the fat because of the low insulin.

(8 year Ketogenic Veteran) #98

Sorry. The word “calories” passed before me and I had to check and see where I was.
TL;DR
Don’t be a CICOpath. That is all.

Carry on :laughing:

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #99

I doubt it, because it is so hard to get studies done that show the health benefits of keto.

Partly that’s because people aren’t willing to fund anything “off-the-wall,” and partly it’s because, believe it or not, it is unethical to give people too much fat, because we know how bad that is for them.

Nina Teicholz noted this in her book: it is not even possible to do a study to prove that fat is bad for us . . . because ethics boards all know that fat is bad for us, lol!

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #100

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

(Mike W.) #101

I knew you would show up :joy:

(Terence Dean) #102

Weight-loss is measured by scales normally but Phinney did an experiment with a group where he locked them in a controlled environment for 6 weeks and had them on a Keto program. They all lost around 14lbs on average except for one female who only lost 7lbs. She blamed the experiment for ruining her metabolism, weeks later when Phinney was able to analyze their urine samples, they discovered that she had actually added 7lbs of lean muscle. According to him this woman had been doing multiple dieting models for years and had what he called sarcopenic diet syndrome. In her case the body wanted to put on muscle as well as lose fat. So what people see on the scales does not necessarily explain what is going on in their bodies, it can be more complex than that.

(bulkbiker) #103

So if I put in post 99 here… then someone can come along and tell me I’m wrong and we can get to 100…

(LeeAnn Brooks) #104

Totally, completely, unequivocally wrong!