Can someone tell me if my thoughts are correct on CICO

(Running from stupidity) #242

Because hormones should be a one-time fix?

(John) #243

I dont think its a one time fix. They are ever changing but fasting is a form of cico any way you look at it. CICO is probably not the only reason fasting works but it is a big contributor IMO. I could be wrong though

(less is more, more or less) #244

Sometimes I wonder how active @carl and @richard are in, reading the forums. This suggests they are quite attentive:

This talk parallels many of the threads in this thread.

(bulkbiker) #245

Dr Ben knocks it out of the park again…
And explains CICO and hormonal responses at about 18 minutes…

(Adam Kirby) #246

I love Sam’s experiments because they prove that the pure CICO framework is simply wrong.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #247

I like his way of putting it, that the hormonal hypothesis embraces and includes the caloric intake model, because the latter simply isn’t complex enough to deal with the reality.

(John) #248

I always enjoy the dudes podcasts but do not always agree with them. I cant be the only person that heard Sam say that he had more energy on the low carb high fat so he did more and was more lethargic on the low fat so did less. That would be a difference in calories out so the results do not surprise me. To me the main thing that he did was once again show how the lchf is better then the sad diet. Also Not to nit pick this but had Sam been doing a test to prove that the keto diet was bad for you the first thing that would have been said is that you cant have that many carbs and be considered on a ketogenic diet. It would have be discounted right then. In fact I bet most people on this site would say you cant get into ketosis with that many grams of carbs. Do the math on the nuts alone. He said over 3000 calories a day of them. I hope this isn’t coming off argumentative. I’m all for this way of eating just cant get on the cico don’t matter train.

(Adam Kirby) #249

The central pillar of CICO is that all calories are equal for weight loss and gain, though.

Feltham completely disproved this theory (for himself).

As for ketosis and carb intake, active & metabolically healthy people can eat more carbs and still be in ketosis.

(Running from stupidity) #250

Exactly. “Eat less, move more, doesn’t matter what you eat.”

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #251

I’m not entirely clear on what you are saying here. Feltham’s 85 grams of carbohydrate a day is low enough for many people to get into ketosis. The lectures by Dr. Phinney that got me to start eating this way two years ago were all from the period when he was working with fat-adapted athletes, and in all the ones I watched, he talks about 100-125 grams as being a low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet and he talks about people getting into ketosis eating that much carbohydrate a day. I seem to be one of those people. The reason I eat much less carbohydrate than that, usually, is that I consider myself a sugar/carb addict and I fear triggering a binge. But a large proportion of my weight loss occurred while I was still eating a higher level of carbohydrate. Go figure. On the other hand, a lot of forum members came here becuase of their high level of insulin resistance, and most of them will probably not be able to get into ketosis until their carbohydrate intake is considerably lower than 85 g/day. Dr. Phinney advises his diabetic patients at Virta Health to eat less that 50 g/day of carbohydrate.

As for the 3000 calories a day that Feltham ate from nuts alone, by my arithmetic a little over 2000 of those calores were from fat, so what’s the problem?

(John) #252

You are correct about all of us having different carb tolerances. it appears that the 85 is net carbs in his case but that doesn’t seem to matter for him. This thread was about cico and at the end of the day he still gained on all 3 test. Just at different amounts. Even Richard says he probably couldn’t get away with eating that many calories and not gain. I do agree with the end result of all calories are not equal but To me He didn’t disprove CICO

(Robert C) #253

I don’t think anyone is trying to argue that CICO is inaccurate from a physics perspective. If you could measure the energy used to heat urine that started as cold water, if you could measure the energy in feces, if you could measure the body temperature all day, the energy used to warm the chair you are sitting in, the extra energy in your warm breath out vs. your cold breath in, if you could measure the energy used in digestion and activity, if you could measure energy used to grow muscle, and to keep the brain going etc. If you could really measure all of those and every other way you expend energy for a day, add to it the extra stored fat and glycogen from that day of eating - you could match it to the “calories in” for that day.

So, mathematically CI = CO

That is not really what the problem is with CICO - the problem is that there is a mathematical implication that since CI = CO then
fat stored = CI - CO

See - we used math there - but we can’t.

Two different people eating exactly the same diet - one highly insulin resistant and obese, the other a normal weight person on keto - will store different amounts of fat.
Two different people that are metabolically identical - one eating 2000 calories of chocolate cake and one eating 2000 calories of ribeye and greens - will store different amounts of fat.

CICO from a physics perspective is true - but you cannot use it in math equations involving adaptive systems.

(Running from stupidity) #254

CICO from a physics perspective is true - but you cannot use it in math equations involving adaptive systems.

Yup. “Explain to me again where the variable of hormones fits into the CICO equation? I don’t see it anywhere.”

(Robert C) #255

Probably many of us have heard the trick question posed to young children (either for educational purposes or, more often, to poke fun):

“Which weighs more, 100 pounds of bricks or 100 pounds of feathers?”

This story embodies much of the thread above (my opinion):

CICO: Hi NormalPerson!

NormalPerson: Hi CICO, how are you today?

CICO: Good, I have a question for you - are you ready?

NormalPerson: Yes, go ahead.

CICO: Would you rather have a 100 pounds of bricks dropped on you or 100 pounds of feathers?

NormalPerson: Well, I guess 100 pounds of feathers.

CICO: HA - you are so stupid - they weigh the same, it doesn’t matter!

(John) #256

I mostly agree with you on this. I do realize there is a difference in the CICO model between people who are fat adapted and those who are not but to think you can eat as much as you want and you wont store fat is crazy. You may put it on at a much slower rate but it will happen. For my body when I just eat to satiety I stay the same. when I mix in fasting I drop a bit. When I mix exercise in the mix I drop a bit quicker. Thats just me. It will not be the same for everyone

(Robert C) #257

You cannot - CICO does not allow for this - CICO doesn’t allow for hormonal differences. CICO is calories in minus calories out equals fat store or loss.

You cannot be sort of pregnant either.

Why do you think this tread has gone on so long?

People are not lawnmowers but, if you give a lawnmower a certain amount of energy, it will run for a while - directly proportional to that energy. People, if not monitored closely, seem to work a similar way. CICO says “therefore they do!” and it is a gross oversimplification on a forum dedicated to exploring and understanding the non-CICO differences (manipulating hormones) to make progress.

(Doug) #258

“Calories Out” includes energy (almost entirely manifested as fat, here) being stored, or excreted, in addition to being metabolized - this is mostly controlled by hormones.

(Heather Meyer) #259

is that total or net?

(Jane) #260

Keto person: is that a bale of solid feathers, or can you drop them on me loose a little at a time?

:smiley:

#261

Literally no one is saying this.