Actually my calories are about 1200 should I go higher
About to stop
Daves_Not_Here
#62
@Baytowvin - I did NOT need to see that butter video â I think I went into spontaneous ketosis just watching it.
Jumping into the whole CICO energy discussion, it seems to me that Calories eaten can be stored, burned, or wasted. Iâve not seen much discussion of the Waste bucket but Iâm curious if it can be significant or can vary. So, this is more of a 2nd Law of Thermodynamics problem if we treat the Waste as entropy.
Thereâs also probably waste on the âburnâ side of the equation, but Iâm too lazy to develop a coherent comment on it.
Also, it seems that the partitioning of energy into these 3 buckets might vary with hormone levels (particularly insulin), macro-nutrient quantities and ratios, and existing thresholds and saturation levels for each within the body. So, there are a lot of confounding factors that, when combined with varying levels of entropy, frustrate a simple CICO analysis.
Anniegirl9
(LeeAnn Brooks)
#63
20g carb + 70g prot x 4 cal per gram = 360 calories.
80g fat x 9 cal per gram = 720.
360 + 720 = 1080.
So either your macros are off or your calories are.
But I would need to know your age, height and weight to give a ballpark of how much you should be eating.
Baytowvin
(TJ Borden)
#65
It absolutely does, and youâre correct that insulin is really the main culprit. Itâs a switch, and when itâs turned on (and the more insulin resistance you are, the longer it stays on), itâs not only forcing unneeded storage of energy, itâs preventing existing stores from being used.
It makes me think of the analogy Dr Lustig used in one of his lectures:
What happens when you give a skinny (insulin sensitive) kid a cookie? They have extra energy to burn so they run around in circles to burn it off.
What happens when you give a fat (insulin resistant) kid a cookie? He wants another cookie, because the first one just went to storage and heâs still hungry because he doesnât have usable energy.
Now I canât attest first hand to the experience of the first kid, but I WAS the second kid, and that part is absolutely true.
RobC
(Robert C)
#67
I am unhappy to see these sorts of things on YouTube (too dangerous):
FYI - Age-restricted video (based on YouTube Community Guidelines)
I am pretty sure Tosh.O said she made it (or they wouldnât have shown it).
Hermione
(Norma Laming)
#70
Carbs from fruit and wine will take you waaaaaay over 20g of carbs a day. I would say thatâs not Keto. Do you know how many carbs are in foods? If you check online or buy a book you will be surprised.
Plus if youâve already decided to go off keto for a trip then Iâm not sure what the point is.
240lbfatloss
(Ken)
#71
kib
(karen)
#72
"Closed systemâ including ⌠well basically, the mass + energy of the earth. For purposes of scientific research, if you are in a closed metabolic chamber, the weight of the chamber with you in it plus whatever is added to the chamber - food, air, water, your Tolkien collection - must balance. I.e if you weigh 200 pounds and 20 pounds of food and water is added to the chamber, the weight becomes 220 pounds and that is not negotiable. The weight you shed from your body goes somewhere, whether itâs body waste, sweat, or converted to energy. So yeah, unless you eject yourself into outer space, your body is part of a closed system.
lambdajoshu
(Brandon Keown)
#73
The human body is not a closed system. It is a dissipative structure.
RobC
(Robert C)
#74
Yes â I think I remember that from a famous movie â a wicked witch â âYou cursed brat, look what youâve done! Iâm dissipating, dissipatingâŚâ.
lambdajoshu
(Brandon Keown)
#76
The primary issue with CICO that I havenât seen anyone address is not that of CICO in a closed system. Itâs the assumption that the equation E = CI - CO or energy balance is equal to calories in minus calories out. In an adaptive structure, this equation is misleading because calories out is actual not an independent variable. The equation looks more like E = CI - f(CI) where f is an somewhat unknown function of how calories in moderates calories out. Yes, the energy balance is still in the equation, but now itâs an equation of 1 variable instead of two, and itâs the equation of two variables that is somewhat of a lie. The worst f is f(CI) = 0, which a lot of people experience with carbohydrates. All energy that goes into the body stays in the body. The best possible f is one which creates a deficit if you are looking to lose weight. Even more complicated is that the f itself, the function by which calories in is made accessible to calories out is also dependent on not the number but the nature of the calories. So the equation looks more like E = CI - h(Q(CI), CI) where h is the hormonal system of a ânormalâ human and Q is the âqualityâ function that classifies incoming calories into something that promotes optimal hormonal function. Thatâs one way of modelling it anyway. Either way, itâs definitely not CICO.
Baytowvin
(TJ Borden)
#77
EXACTLY, thatâs what I was trying to say yesterday, but you explain it way better. People tend to use a BMR calculator and assume that the number it spits out is not only exact, but a constant, only changed as weight changes.
jgilberAZ
(Jeff Gilbertson)
#78
Being PART OF a closed system does not make you a closed system.
We are defined as an open system, so the laws that apply to closed systems donât necessarily apply to us.
kib
(karen)
#80
fine, calories out is not an independent variable. it doesnât really make a difference to the basic point: f is an unknown, which means f(CI) is also unknown, although it is the f and not the CO or CI that makes it so. Within that, what we know, as you pointed out, is that E = CI - f(CI), which still fulfills the basic law of thermodynamics. Whatever f may be, it accounts for the âmissingâ energy in the caloric equation.
Sorry if I misrepresented my point by saying the human body per se is a closed system. The laws of thermodynamics apply to the closed system of human being + closed environment.