Can someone tell me if my thoughts are correct on CICO

(Adam Kirby) #202

Both things can be true. Your body is noticing the calorie deprivation and downregulating nonessential stuff like your temperature.

(Mike Leahy) #203

Calories assume different importance depending where we are in the journey towards lessened mortality risk (that’s why we’re practising keto, right?). At the start of my journey, calories distracted: I needed to lessen my body’s resistance to insulin urgently, so reducing whatever caused insulin levels to surge was the imperative. I counted carbs. As the weight dropped, at the point people started to comment that I was looking “gaunt”, it became necessary to not only monitor my macros but my system’s overall health - and at that point I factored in calories. My experience was that it was possible to feel very satiated on a very low calorific intake per day, but that was not the same as doing it in a balanced, healthy manner. So I set an overall goal of 2000 calories per day along with 20-odd carbs, 90-odd protein, and around 180g of fat. A healthy balance restored, keto is now, for me sustainable. My diabetes has well and truely gone, my cardiac risk factors all show optimum levels of risk, 22kg lost. So my take: calories do count but mostly when the goal posts are within sight.

(Running from stupidity) #204

I pronounce it “PSYCHO.” YOU KNOW IT WORKS

(Cindy) #205

@gabe, you’re about as stubborn as I am. :wink: You keep spouting “It’s science, it’s science!” but it’s really NOT. Here’s why. A CALORIE is a unit of measurement based upon raising the temperature of 1g of water 1 degree Celsius in a closed system. Granted, THAT is science.

But calories in a food are based upon the estimate from individual components in a food. For example, science has determined that 1 g of fat will produce 9 calories (raise 1 g of water 9 degree celsius). 1 g of carbs will produce 4 calories of energy. Again, that part is science because they can take that gram of fat/carb/protein, burn it in a closed system to measure the energy released.

But then, they look at the basic composition of a food and estimate the calories. They don’t even do the SCIENCE of actually measuring energy output in a closed system.

The problem is that you CANNOT take the individual pieces and simply apply that to a more complex system. Calories of foods don’t take into consideration such things as fiber content, types of carbs, how the energy is utilized in the body, etc.

It’s almost like you’re taking a beginning physics problem such as Work = Force X Distance and then saying that holds true ALWAYS. But it’s SCIENCE, work always = FD. In the most basic sense, it does because it’s a definition. But in real life, Work is affected by the angle at which you’re moving an object, the coefficient of friction between two objects, the direction in which the force is applied, etc. And even THAT is very basic compared to the mechanisms within the human body.

The SCIENCE is proving that long-term, healthy, sustainable weight loss is NOT about calories. I don’t expect you’re going to change your view and that’s fine.

(Running from stupidity) #206

SCIENCE DENIER!

I mean, QFT.

(Cindy) #207

LOL, well, it’s been a number of years, but I double majored in Biology and Chemistry, went to grad school to get my doctorate in Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics. Sadly, I didn’t finish the doctorate…after 2 years, I was in severe burnout mode so I quit and joined the Peace Corp. I later taught Biology, Chemistry, and Physics, so I’m very aware of what true science is.

(Doug) #208

Cindy, things are inexact as far as counting the calories in most foods, it’s true. However, we weigh what we weigh because of what we’ve put in our mouth, and whether we say it’s calories or fats/proteins/carbs, it ends up all the same deal - energy/calories (and whatever other terms we may favor for them) get burned, get excreted, or get stored - that’s pretty much it.

We’re not scientific calorimeters,’ but we can be frustratingly efficient at storing calories or at burning less of them in some situations. If there is a ‘magic’ to keto, it’s that calories tend to go less into storage and more into energy production, and that our bodies become better able to burn stored calories (overwhelmingly as fat) for energy.

(Cindy) #209

True, but again, ONLY IN THE SIMPLEST meaning. I agree that what I’ve eaten has made me fat. I can also say that the exercise I haven’t done has made me fat. I can also show a strong genetic predisposition to obesity in our family that has helped to make me fat. I can also show you the science of why HORMONES have also made me fat. There’s recent studies showing that GUT FLORA contribute to obesity, too.

Now, again, true, if I simply didn’t eat, my exercise level, age, genetics, hormones, gut flora, etc, wouldn’t matter. I’d lose weight. But note I said HEALTHY, SUSTAINABLE, LONG-TERM weight loss. If I stop eating, it’s certainly NOT sustainable, I’ll eventually die. Oh, I could probably drop to something like 500 calories/day, which would keep me alive, but it still wouldn’t be HEALTHY.

So again…this is science. You can’t just keep saying “But it’s calories!” when there are so many other factors involved. Science really does try to account for ALL variables. That’s why experiments strictly control as many variables as possible while changing ONE.

Using the Work = Force X Distance example again. I can tell someone to push on a block and if they’re pushing in the correct direction, the block WILL eventually move given enough force. But if they’re pushing at the wrong angle, if the friction is very high, etc. then it’s going to take a helluva lot of force to move it. You can spout all day long that “Hey, you’re just not trying hard enough!” but that’s not true.

So that’s my complaint about emphasizing calories so much. It completely ignores all the other factors involved in weight loss. And you know what? The people who most vehemently support that concept are usually MEN. Because men CAN usually lose weight (and keep it off) more easily, because they generally have higher metabolisms, more muscle mass, fewer fluctuations in hormones, etc. It’s not that you’re so good at controlling what you put in your mouth…it’s that you’re pushing a block on a flat, slick service parallel to the direction of movement.

#210

Lyle McDonald has some excellent information on the impact of women’s hormones on fat loss - it’s insane what we’re up against!

#211

Agreed, I like the way you explained it.

The keto experts haven’t said calories don’t matter, they say the do matter.

An excerpt From: Drs Eric C. Westman, Phinney, Volek. “The New Atkins for a New You: The Ultimate Diet for Shedding Weight and Feeling Great.”

Are you eating too many calories?

Although you don’t have to count calories on Atkins, if you’re overdoing the protein and fat, you may be taking in too many calories. We know, we said that you don’t have to count calories on Atkins, and the vast majority of people don’t, but you may need a reality check. ”

Originally I went way below! I was so used to CICO thinking and S.A.D influences. I seemed to auto-pilot to “eat less - move more” thinking. Of course this just slows the metabolism down to a crawl. Not great if wanting to lose weight. So I had to eat more when I went keto!

At other times I went way over, via too much protein. All that food has to go somewhere. So I had to eat less.

Yep it’s a juggling act. CICO matters. But counting carbs and counting protein matters more.

People say calories matter - yes they do. But a 100 Cals worth of olive oil is not the same as 100 Cals worth of sugar. Handled completely differently, completely different pathways, completely different results.

Those 100 Cals worth of olive oil by a fat adapted person is handled differently to the exact same 100 Cals worth of olive oil by a glucose burning person.

Large companies, like makers of brown sugary drinks, want us to believe “a calorie is a calorie” no matter where it comes from. In that sense CICO can be used to lure people into drinking their poison. Excuse me. We have been lied to long enough.

(L. C.) #212

I’m experiencing the same thing. Urine strips are real fickle, too-

(Wendy) #213

This^ this is my point about the calorie measurement. I think you explained it well OldDoug!
I’d never say calories don’t exist or that foods don’t carry energy but I would agree that counting the calories and giving a number to reach is pretty speculative. I apparently am burning more calories than I am taking in; even though I am adding more food, my body is still losing weight. I know there will be a point where more food will stop this but apparently I haven’t hit it yet.
I don’t believe that something that measures how a food burned is equivalent to how our bodies use the energy we put in our mouths.
There is truth and there is science. Good science explains the truth that is, Bad science is (at some future time) discarded and replaced with what is later understood. Truth is true whether we accept it or understand it.

#214

Ok, thanks.

Is there a down side to the metabolism slowing but, not enough to stop weight loss? (other than feeling cold!).

(Adam Kirby) #215

Dunno. I don’t think it’s good to mimic food scarcity long-term. May make maintaining your weight loss harder in the long run. I think we should respect that as human animals we probably evolved with feast and fast cycles, and engage in feasting periodically.

(Jane) #216

The only downside I know of is for some people the hunger monster kicks in to get you to eat more and then the weight starts creeping up because they choose the wrong foods (carbs). As long as you aren’t hungry and have plenty of warm clothes and KCKO I don’t see a problem.

(Doug) #217

Cindy, I think the arguments over ‘CICO’ stem from people wanting explanations that are too simplistic. I agree with you that there are several other important factors that can affect our weight, as you said. That doesn’t mean that “calories are irrelevant.” Not that you have said that, specificially, but it’s certainly been said quite a few times on this forum alone.

I think if we acknowledge that calories get stored and excreted as well as burned, and that the “Out” portion can be influenced by the “In” and hormones, gut flora, etc., then CICO works just fine.

I’m truly not just saying, “But it’s calories!” In no way do I think that calorie restriction (and more exercise) will necessarily provide weight loss, especially the long-term, healthy, sustainable kind. Nevertheless, there’s no indictment of CICO there, any more than there is of grams of nutrients, etc.

If somebody makes the unqualified assertion, “The answer for weight loss is just to eat less,” I’d disagree with them as strongly as you would.

I don’t say they’re just not trying hard enough. No question there are hormonal issues, etc., to consider, not just calories. The conditions of the block-pushing example can change, indeed, but that does not render the physical laws invalid. For weight loss, we want the “Calories Out” to be coming from our stored fat. Getting there is the trick, just as the block-pusher needs to push in the correct direction, etc.

You and I really don’t disagree on much. I think that statement is too simplistic, that’s all.

(Cindy) #218

I agree with you there! Obviously, anyone can massively over eat and certainly not lose weight. If I’m wanting to be argumentative ;), I could say I still wouldn’t phrase it in calories. Because wood has calories, but even if you ate a cord of wood, you wouldn’t gain weight. :smiley:

I also feel like, because calories have been over-used as a method for determining nutrients in a diet, that if anything, we should err in the opposite direction to compensate. Just stop using it totally. That would avoid some people thinking “a calorie is a calorie” or you need to consume less calories than you expend…because those certainly are way too simplistic.

But yes, we agree much more than disagree. :smiley:

(Doug) #219

Yeah, we’re not all about digesting cellulose. :slightly_smiling_face:

Those wood calories mostly just go on through. ‘CICO’ scores again! :sunglasses: :smile:

(Jane) #220

:rofl:

(Running from stupidity) #221

I think we can say, safely enough, that: “The science is proving that long-term, healthy, sustainable weight loss is not JUST about calories.” In, out, around. Clearly calories have SOMETHING to do with it, given it’s the term we’re choosing to use to describe (measure is a term that sounds far more precise than it should) the energy units we’re storing as fat.