Good find! Bikman discusses uncoupling protein and BAT quite understandably here:
Yes, and while it’s often hard to do so (I know well, myself), keeping posts shorter versus longer helps as well. Too much lays around, right or wrong, and doesn’t get addressed, and eventually gets said again and again, to little purpose.
We should address what other people are saying.
So, are you Luke Skywalker or Don Quixote? Thinking pretty seriously that it’s the latter. Tilting at windmills, rather than responding to what the issues are, and always have been, on this forum.
That’s silly. Even the most incomplete and unmindful-of-the-larger-picture “count calories” or “eat less and move more” strategy works for lots of people. So you’re wrong about “universal failure.” To be truthful, you can say those don’t work for everybody, and nobody is going to argue with you, because then you’re correct.
Meanwhile, how about addressing the scientific points brought up by people who are actually posting on the forum?
So who are you talking about? You’ve obviously got things mixed up, there. Other than maybe an out-and-out troll trying to bait people (?), has there ever been anybody on this forum that has been a proponent of CICO as you want to characterize it? This forum has been here the best part of four years.
Look at what Paul said:
So Paul’s pretty reasonable about most things. But the “calorie is a calorie” remains woefully out-of-context. You can say, “So what?” or just note that such things are not rational arguments, here. From another thread; check it out:
So, context really does matter, and you can use all the same arguments for or against your statement there.
Right, so can we stop pretending that the out-of-context “a calorie is a calorie” matters either way?
Wow, this is so wrong. CICO doesn’t include or “have” the first law inside it. “Calories in, calories out.” Nothing there about the necessary relationships and statements in the first law. The point is that the first law applies to all of what we’re talking about, period. To assert or imply otherwise is incorrect.
Insulin can affect CICO - it may affect the disposition of the “in” from exogenous food, and/or relatively facilitate all or part of the “in” coming from fat stores. Does it affect the “out”? There’s a good question for everybody.
Yet again, nobody is doing that. If you think somebody is, quote them. The point about the first law is that it illustrates the meaninglessness of the argument about “a calorie is a calorie,” and also renders many statements made by “anti-CICO” people on the forum demonstrably false.
Back to this one. We need to quote the statements that violate the first law. It’s late and that’s a good project for another day, as it does address the discussion on the forum.
Gotta call BS on this one. Nobody said energy expenditure was irrelevant, nor implied you said it was.
Surely your point was that his weight didn’t change very much, given the large amount he averaged eating each day.
Here’s what you said about Sam:
The first law is going to be just fine - there should not be any argument about it. The alternative is ‘missing’ or ‘extra’ energy, and thus the question about “The whole package is “in,” then either metabolism, storage or excretion (waste). If something substantial is missing here, what is it or what are they? It’s been asked before, and I’ve never seen a good answer.”
For energy usage, metabolism and weight change are the two biggies. Excretion is normally very small. So, Sam had a small weight change. The obvious question is then what was his energy expenditure doing. You didn’t say what it was. It’s not that considerations of energy balance are too simplistic - not at all.
I like to look at this from a Bariatric perspective also to get a concrete idea on the amount of food eaten.
“…As many as 50 percent of patients may regain a small amount of weight (approximately 5 percent) two years or more following their surgery. However, longitudinal studies find that most bariatric surgery patients maintain successful weight - loss long-term. …” …More
Now this tells me a little something?
That the amount of food of all caloric groups is what really matters, not whether or not your app said you need this ____many calories (…which would work fine if you barely have any body fat).
How much body fat you have on-board is not going to work if your counting calories and you don’t know what that is in calories and how fast you can expend a sum of it while putting more food into it?
If you have a lot of body fat, that’s a lot of calories; only problem is you cannot expend all that energy at once?
Perhaps eating let’s say a quarter of that stored energy that the rest of the stored calories would compensate for the rest? Then the stored lipids get oxidized?
I don’t think there is a “one size fits all” way about this. Sometimes it is the total amount, and other times there will be other significant factors, as with the insulin level and insulin resistance.
There is a limit on how much we can metabolize, over time. Who knows about the 31 calories per pound of fat per day, though? Ultramarathon runners and the like would exceed this, but to my knowledge always consume some food during such prolonged exercise.
You’re so right, my bad: it works for up to 20% some of the time:
Research suggests that roughly 80% of people who shed a significant portion of their body fat will not maintain that degree of weight loss for 12 months; and, according to one meta-analysis of intervention studies, dieters regain, on average, more than half of what they lose within two years.
In a meta-analysis of 29 long-term weight loss studies, more than half of the lost weight was regained within two years, and by five years more than 80% of lost weight was regained (Figure 1)4. Indeed, previous failed attempts at achieving durable weight loss may have contributed to the recent decrease in the percentage of people with obesity who are trying to lose weight5 and many now believe that weight loss is a futile endeavor6.
Oh, wait. Jason Fung says it’s not even that good:
So, while we all obsess about reducing ‘Calories In’, it is actually virtually irrelevant for long term weight loss. It’s only ‘Calories Out’ that is important. If you can keep ‘Calories Out’ high, then you have a chance to lose weight. But Caloric Reduction as Primary (neatly abbreviated as CRaP), absolutely will not do it for you. This method is practically guaranteed to fail. This weight-loss method, in the literature, has a 99% failure rate. In this study, 13 of 14 Biggest Loser contestants failed – a 93% failure rate. Pretty much expected.
Again, Jason Fung:
Said another way — reducing Calories In reduces Calories Out. Reducing caloric intake inevitably leads to reduced caloric expenditure. That is why conventional dieting as we know it does not work. I know it. You know it.
Another random find:
Although dieters in the studies had lost weight in the first nine to 12 months, over the next two to five years, they had gained back all but an average of 2.1 of those pounds. Participants in the non-dieting waitlist control groups gained weight during those same years, but an average of just 1.2 pounds.
Hey @ElmosUzi do your homework before spouting off to avoid making a fool of yourself.
All the studies you are citing are Non-Bariatric patients which gives me a clue about the efficacy of the research itself and the long-term longitudinal outcomes?
So this gives me another clue as the fictional Sherlock Holmes use to say “…it’s elementary my dear Watson…lol
…And that is, people eat too much and too often and pay too much attention to counting calories (whatever that means?) rather than the amount of mass they are putting into a system that cannot keep up with the input, so it is forced to expand and the only way to make it retract is to figure out where the sweet spot is as Dr. Peter Attia points out here!
I love this paradigm because you cannot argue against it, no matter what you can think of; a square is a square, a circle is a circle, gravity is gravity; the core rotational axis of the gyroscope…lol
The X, Y, Z Axis:
X = Always Pull CR:1 (restriction of quantity consumed) - Restrict How much you eat = Quantity
Y = Often Pull TR: 2 (time restriction) - Restrict When you eat = Timing
Z = Occasionally Pull DR:3 (restrict elements of the diet) - Restrict What you eat = Elements …More
Jason Fung’s analysis is quite pertinent to this discussion:
As is this discussion by Andreas Eenfeldt:
Michael Eades has an excellent commentary on Kevin Hall’s claimed debunking of the carbohydrate insulin hypothesis of obesity:
I agree, timing is a sprocket or arm on the 3 axis.
Which leads me to my third clue?
Why not “fast” a little bit instead of getting Bariatric surgery?
image link image link
“Often“ Pull Axis 2?
It’s a long way from viewing it completely down to cherry-picking anecdotal stories or focusing on the “small truth” versus the “larger truth.” Versions of the argument have been around longer than this forum.
That’s from over two years ago, with links going back into 2017. On the “All things CICO…” thread I think they do a pretty good job, overall.
And we think counting calories is a match for all this?
Only way to deal with that is not give it so much food? The timing and what your putting into it?
As Carol points out “…you won’t find any calorie sensors?..”
…in that mess…lol
If you do, that’s on you. Do you see anybody else saying that?
I’ve seen some threads full of illogic before, but this one just may take the cake.
Are you sane?
Do you really think you can bully people into silence especially because they might be right?
Same-thing the sugar industry did to scientist back in the day!
Who needs science when you can disregard anything you want ‘just because?’ Your science does not work and you have lots of money? In this case shattered Id’s and Egos?
“…I will personally attack people ’‘just because’’ I don’t want any kind of academic science or scholastic learning to be known?..”
The perfect recipe for the Dystopian Orwellian Nightmare?
“…You could not possibly do a ketogenic diet without eating only meat and fat and you cannot disagree with me or I will bully you to death?..”
Sounds more like Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451?
Bunny, you’re the one that asked the question, and you already know it wasn’t the right question, you were just going for another strawman.
Everybody is aware that human metabolism “is complicated.” If you want to consider “all this,” as you said, then you can skip right to the end result and look at the energy balance.
Or, feel free to ‘reinvent the wheel,’ so to speak, as it pertains to biochemistry, but that’s a far different thing, and overly simplistic questions will not get you far (just take a look at that picture…). If you want “complicated,” then you’ve got it right there.
But if you want “simple,” then ask a credible question.
Be credible. It wasn’t even a week ago that you were telling us
You’ve got the fat outside of the fat cell, there. Same thing, you already know that’s not the way it works.
How can fat or lipid droplets be outside the fat cells? I’m not sure what your talking about? But maybe your thinking is fat droplets just defy gravity and suspend themselves in mid-air, no organelle required?
You must talking about this?
And I respond:
So, what happened?
Telling a person this or that is illogical without explaining why or what was illogical, is basically an effortless endeavor to play tit for tat emotional games to hide any negative information.
If not, then it is just a way of trying to silence a person by bulling them with make believe propaganda, word smithery and make everything senseless and illogical because their feelings got hurt?
So please educate me with this superior knowledge I must not be privy too on what exactly this illogic is, so we can make it logical together?
These kind of games are just a waste of hard drive space!
Dude, you just made a mistake, that’s all. You weren’t correct in saying, “universal failure” - why not accept it and move on? If you want to talk about a specific group of people, like the ‘Biggest Losers,’ for example, then we can, but that’s a different thing, and ‘moving the goalposts’ is a logical fallacy.
You’re acting like the teacher said, “That’s wrong,” and then you want to change the question or the answer.
All through this thread people have been mentioning taking a more complete view of things, thinking critically, and really just being logical (not presenting opinion as fact, generalizing from the particular, qualifying our statements/assertions so they’re always true rather than just sometimes true, etc.).
So, how about us all making sure that our statements are true.
It really is like you’re on a “crusade” against something that you’ve personified, like an imaginary evil dragon. CICO is just a consideration of quantities. The question is if it’s being considered correctly or not. This person, that person, this group, that group - some will be right and some will be wrong.
You’ve already been wrong about it. There are ~7.8 billion people on earth, so it’s not exactly big news that you can find others making similar mistakes.
There’s another case of you being wrong about it. In your mythic ‘quest’ you are willing to skirt around the truth, or outright deny it. Again, opinions, attitudes, impressions - these can and will vary - but if we’re going to assert things then let’s have them be correct.
And there is a ‘more complete view of things.’ Going back to your original post here, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the teacher analogy: one day, you say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics proves that “a calorie is not a calorie.” The next day you say that the 1st law of thermodynamics proves that “a calorie is a calorie.” In that context, both times the teacher can pat you on the head and say, “Yes, Michael, that’s right.” Is that what you really want?
All Sideshow Bob emotional rants and critiques to the side what do you believe to be true or has the most efficacy?
Ha ha, very funny. You said it, post #77:
What happened is that your question implied a false thing - you were going for a strawman argument. It’s certainly sane to point that out.
You appear to both want to put words in other people’s mouths, and then direct arguments against your imaginary constructions, AND to want to deny your own words, things you actually did say.
Just to be clear - nobody said that “counting calories” explains everything about human metabolism, but you want to pretend otherwise, and that’s wrong.
Then you also want to pretend you didn’t say what you did (about the fat cells) and that’s wrong too.
As I said to Michael, how about us all making sure that our statements are true.