Can someone tell me if my thoughts are correct on CICO

(John) #262

Actually I see it indirectly said alot. Especially whenever CICO is brought up. I can agree to disagree and move on though. I most definitely see this site as a great thing for all of us and realize we wont all agree on everything.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #263

He’s British, and British nutrition labels show net carbs, so there is a good chance it’s net, but he might have entered the fiber (fibre :grin:) back in. If he said one way or the other, I didn’t notice, so I’m just guessing.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #264

You can eat a lot more food than you think, and still lose weight. That is people’s actual experience. There are documented cases of study participants eating, say 3000 calories a day by eating to satiety and still losing as much fat as the other participants in the study. Not to mention Sam Feltham’s month of eating 5000 calories a day, during which he lost a little fat and gained a bit of muscle, so his weight remained stable.

However, if you eat to satiety, as we recommend, if you have fat to lose, as many of us do, the body is capable of setting your appetite at a level at which both the fat in your diet and some excess stored body fat can be metabolized. Of course, once your body has shed its excess fat, all your daily energy has to come from food. But people with fat to lose who eat to satiety usually end up eating at some sort of caloric deficit without needing to feel hungry. Also, just as the body lowers its basal metabolic rate when we give it too little food, it also raises its metabolic rate when we give it more than it needs. Healthier mitochondria consume more energy (or so I understand), and there is also the phenomenon of mitochondrial uncoupling, in which the mitochondria in adipose cells consume extra fat, above and beyond what their cell requires to function. Also ketone bodies in the breath and urine are another way in which the body can dispose of excess energy. And on top of it all, as I go along, I am finding that it gets harder and harder to eat past the point of satiation.

(Running from stupidity) #265

Yep, we agree entirely. But it’s not in CICO as generally expressed and understood: “Eat less, move more.”

(Wendy) #266

Actually fasting is a way to lower your insulin levels and to increase ketone levels. The more insulin resistant you are the longer you may need to fast.
Eating the same amount of calories spread more evenly is different than spreading out the hours you don’t eat.
I personally have only done a few 24 hour fasts but do regularly fast from dinner until lunch (12-2 PM or even later).

(Consensus is Politics) #267

Actually that is what I do. I eat as much as I want, LITERALLY. But because I’m fat adapted, and I eat about 75% of my daily food intake as fat, and pretty much ZERO carbs (that’s just my thing) which keeps my hormones in check, IM NEVER HUNGRY. Matter fact, I very quickly get to a point where I just don’t WANT to eat anymore. The definition of eat as much as I want. Sure, I could then force feed myself a bit more, but then I begin to feel ill, and would probably puke it back up if I continued.

CICO idea isn’t wrong because it isn’t real. I/O can be measured in a lot of things. It’s a simple measurement. But the way it’s often presented is wrong because of a general misunderstanding. If I’m an overweight guy trying to lose 50 pounds, reducing my caloric intake from 2,000 cals a day to 1,900 a day will have no effect. Reducing to 1,800 will have no effect (I’m speaking in terms of weight loss, there is another effect). There will be a point where I eventually can cut down to to lose weight. Probably around 1,500 calories thereabouts.

Before hittting that barrier, I wouldn’t lose fat, I would simply feel low on energy and cold. Once I hit that barrier, I would probably feel hungry all the time.

I do this all the time while intermittently fasting or when doing extended fasts. I have also tested the CICO hypothesis by intentionally reducing the amount of calories I eat. I don’t see a change in weight loss until I hit about 50% of my normal calorie intake. I have also noticed I can eat about another 1,000 calories a day (I haven’t gone higher than that so I haven’t hit the upper limit yet) and NOT GAINED WEIGHT (I did this when I started keto. I lost weight while doing this, 40 pounds in two weeks. That was over a year ago and have never put that weight back on, but have also lost an additional 10 pounds over the year, although admittedly not at 3,000 calorie a day, but closer to 2,000 calories a day. With no exercise unless you count playing World of Warcraft as exercise :roll_eyes:.

[sorry if the post got disjointed. The wife kept interrupting and I lost all train of thought. I think it’s close enough to what I wanted to say. If I rambled to much, just ignore me. It’s what I do, I just ignore myself.]

(Doug) #268

Well then those bleedin’ buggers are doing it wrong. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #269

It’s not a great analogy. In a vacuum, it DOESN’T make any difference whether bricks or feathers are dropped on you. They’d have the same effect.

The fact that “CICO” has come to mean “all calories are equal” isn’t really interesting to me. The word “calories” is not a magical word, nor is it a dirty word, but it has become that in this community.

Energy in and energy out MATTER, no matter whether you believe in the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity or not. The model explains what regulates fat levels and hunger and satiety signaling. It doesn’t replace the laws of physics.

(Cindy) #270

This is the “scary” part of keto to me…knowing that I’m eating more calories than I normally could without gaining weight, especially since I need to LOSE weight. In any past attempts at weight loss, even with the LapBand, I knew I was eating ~600 - 800 cal/day (on average). Then there’s the worry that if I’m eating too little, there’s the dreaded BMR reduction or an inability to keep it off later. Weight loss is truly a messed up balance. LOL

(Running from stupidity) #271

Certainly :smiley:

:rofl:

(Consensus is Politics) #272

Lmao…

Uhm… I so hope you are making a joke. In a vacuum they would have the same effect? They might fall at the same speed, but one of those 100 pounds is a lot more dense than the other. One of them is is gonna pound you to death from multiple impacts while the others impacts are near unnoticeable (depending of course on height they are dropped from). Then of course if they are both in a bail of some kind, then the density doesn’t matter.

That’s the problem with these logic puzzles. They never cover all the variables. I used to piss off my science teachers in high school because I always brought up the other variables and what if’s. Often I was told that’s for an advanced class. To which I often replied, how do I get into that class then?

(Consensus is Politics) #273

But you can’t control your energy out. Your body is variable. It’s not a closed system. That’s why the laws of thermodynamics don’t apply to eating. It’s physiology not physics. The body will reduce its energy output when supplied with less energy to maintain its state.

Pasted from Wiki, sorry for the strange formatting.

The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed. The first law is often formulated[1][nb 1]

{\displaystyle \Delta U=Q-W.}

It states that the change in the internal energy Δ U of a closed system is equal to the amount of heat Q supplied to the system, minus the amount of work W done by the system on its surroundings. An equivalent statement is that perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #274

Energy out varies, and energy in can be varied. The point is not whether you can control them. Physical laws still apply, and the energy balance is still relevant, no matter how much you wish it wasn’t.

Yes, if you reduce CI, your body will likely drop CO. That says nothing about whether CI and CO are relevant. In fact, your entire argument assumes that calories are relevant. Because of course they are.

(Robert C) #275

I still think it is a great analogy.

From the physics standpoint (in a vacuum) with the weight (100 pounds) being the same it is correct that there will be the same energy transfer or interaction or whatever you want to call it (if you control and ensure all of the 100 pounds lands on the person from say 10 feet). Same idea as CICO, physics wise it would be accurate.

But, of course, 100 pounds of bricks has edges and high density so it will bruise, smash bone and split skin - feathers cannot do those things.

That’s why the analogy holds - physics describes one single measure (weight or calories) which interacts with a human and technically has the identical outcome (100% energy transfer from the dropped object to the human below or calories in equals calories out if it could be completely measured) but the actual effect on the human body is completely different (bricks kill the human and the CICO model - although very intuitive - implies fat is bad, satiety is not a thing, hormones do not exist etc. as well as allowing large companies and politicians to argue that their calorie filled nutrient poor long-shelf-life foods are just as good as what we really evolved to eat).

So, the point is “yes” - extending narrow thinking from physics to cover complex systems is error prone and can send the western world into a 50 plus year bankrupting health quagmire from which we may not recover.

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #276

If you put 100 pounds of feathers in a bag and drop them on a human in a vacuum, there may be some mitigation of impact because they’re not nearly as hard as bricks, but I’m pretty sure you’ll kill the human. You’re dropping 100 pounds of stuff on someone without air resistance.

Again, the only variable distinguishing the bricks from the feathers in a vacuum is their flexion or their give. But 100 pounds is 100 pounds. Honestly, I suspect you’d kill a human dropping 100 pounds of feathers in a bag even without a vacuum.

(Running from stupidity) #277

So, to summarise: It matters, but you can’t control it, so therefore it’s worth ranting about continually.

(Robert C) #278

No one said bag the bricks or feathers to add density.
100 pounds of bricks from 3 or 4 feet might kill you (vacuum or not).
100 pounds of I unbagged feathers from 100 feet probably won’t bother you.

Again, physics is correct, affect on the body measured only in physics terms (force) will be the same with dramatically different affects on the skin, bone and amount of blood spilled.

(Cindy) #279

But this is what Gabe does. States something one way, and then when it’s refuted, modifies the parameters to say “This is what I actually meant!”

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #280

You can totally control it, because there are people around here who think that you can stuff your belly full of fat and never gain weight because “calories don’t matter.” But calories do matter. So it’s absolutely worth ranting about in response to the incessant unscientific bulldust being peddled on these forums.

EVERY low carb scientist and doctor agrees that calories matter. The only thing they’ve ever said is, as Westman has, you shouldn’t count them.

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #281

Is that right?