I kind of thought I was done with this when I left MFP. At least it is nice not to have each CICO discussion end with “you lost weight because you were in deficit and you don’t need keto to do that”.
Can someone tell me if my thoughts are correct on CICO
cw2001
(Cindy)
#323
I’m not triggered by a simple word. I do tend to get annoyed when someone adamantly sticks to a very simplistic idea without understanding that there are complexities to it. Yes, a calorie is a unit of energy in physics. Apply that to the human body and it becomes a much more complex concept. You’re stuck on the “simple” version.
We most certainly don’t agree on the science. You fail to understand the difference between causation and correlation and other basic science tenets.
The reason I ask about previous weight loss attempts is because your posts strike me as a bit arrogant. Like once you think you know something, you know it, or because something worked for you, it should work for everyone, etc. Kind of like the smoker or alcoholic who, once kicking the habit, seems to know the answer for everyone else who smokes or drinks.
gabe
(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” )
#325
Actually, that statement is perfectly fair. It’s just not sustainable to do it on a high carb diet. You’ll be hungry all the time. But it’s perfectly possible to do it, and it is utterly inarguable that you need to be in caloric deficit to lose body fat.
juice
(Running from stupidity)
#326
Your recent posting history disproves that claim pretty comprehensively.
Yup.
Alex99
#327
Is this what we are all trying to say?
Excerpt from the book “The New Atkins for a New You” Eric C. Westman, Stephen Phinney, Jeff Volek.
Yes this is the very same Westman, Phinney and Volek, before we had the more jazzy term “keto diet” it was called “Atkins20 Induction Phase” so don’t let the word “Atkins” throw you. Quoted verbatim, I added the bold and italics
“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.
Course correction: See “Savor, Don’t Smother” on page 57 and refer to the recommended protein ranges on page 42. Women should shoot for a range of 1,500 to 1,800 calories a day, while men should aim for 1,800 to 2,200.
Eat less if you’re not losing weight. If you’re accustomed to counting calories, you’ll know what your range is. If not, a spot check at www.fitday.com will tell you whether you’re in the ballpark. (If you’re losing nicely, don’t worry about calories.)”
Sounds clear enough to me. If you are losing weight then carry on.
but if you are not losing weight then you have to get to the bottom of it. One reason can be just plain good old fashioned - eating too much! Too much protein? Too much fat? Some hidden or unaccounted for carbs …
It seems keto is not giving us a “get out of jail - free - do whatever you want just stay under 20g” card.
gabe
(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” )
#329
By the way, quoting Phinney and Westman and Volek talking about calories is technically a (fallacious) argument from authority. But nobody has the balls to seriously argue that these giants are wrong, so they just try to reframe what they say to suit their fat-gobbling dogma. I’m sure someone will find a way to reframe the Atkins Induction guide too.
SCIENCE, guys. You cannot eat boatloads of fat and lose body fat. Certainly not if you’re within spitting distance of a healthy weight. It doesn’t work (or at least not for everyone), and keto isn’t magic, and calories [spoiler]goddamn[/spoiler] matter, and I’ll keep saying it even if I get pilloried for it.
cw2001
(Cindy)
#331
Well written, Alex! Note how your emphasis is different from Gabe’s though (which is what Gabe just can’t seem to grasp). You highlighted the part of “Eat less if you’re not losing weight.” It’s not about “eat this many calories to lose weight.” It’s first about fixing what you eat (too many carbs) and why you eat (stress, emotions, following the food pyramid, etc).
THEN if you’re not losing weight, examine what’s happening. Again, it’s not “if you’re losing weight, you’re eating too many calories!”…it’s “if you’re not losing weight, then re-examine.” Maybe it is too many carbs and NOT too many calories. Or it’s too many artificial sweeteners or dairy or…nuts…and yes, if dairy and nuts are reduced, that reduces calories…but it might be that dairy is a problem because of a gut sensitivity to it, etc. and NOT an excess of calories.
And maybe too much protein causes weight gain (or no loss) NOT because of the calories, but because it triggers insulin. So maybe it still isn’t about calories…the calorie is just one marker that we can SEE and try to measure.
Causation vs correlation. And @gabe, as for reframing Phinney et al’s arguments…have you considered that the only reason THEY discuss calories is that they realize the calories dogma is so firmly entrenched that if they don’t try to reframe their findings to appease the masses, they wouldn’t get any where? So you might easily have that backwards. Just imagine how many times they’ve been asked the question “But how many calories should I eat?”
After all, look at how people react to fasting? Fasters often recommend that you don’t tell anyone that you’re fasting because mainstream still considers it radical. How many people still firmly believe that 3 meals/day plus snacks is the healthiest way to eat? So it might very well be that someone could eat as much fat as they wanted IF they weren’t still hung up on getting x, y, z vitamins and minerals from fruits and vegetables, trying to eat “3 squares” etc.
gabe
(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” )
#333
Straw man, I never advocated calorie counting. In fact, I’ve said precisely the opposite, because I’ve simply repeated what Eric Westman says. To quote him VERBATIM: “Calories count, but you don’t have to count them.”
Et voila! The reframing begins. Here we have an example of acknowledging that your keto idols DID say that calories matter and that you may need to reduce calorie intake to lose weight, but that “they didn’t really mean it.” LOL!
gabe
(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” )
#334
But Alex: you can’t make peace, because these people can’t hear the word “calorie” without starting an argument.
Screenack
(less is more, more or less)
#335
This has become a battle of egos, not ideas. Someone tell me when we get back to a good faith discussion.
cw2001
(Cindy)
#336
LOL, no, not really. First, the keto idols didn’t say “reduce calorie intake to lose weight.” They’ve said you might need a reality check and you might need to eat less. Again, no mention of actually restricting according to calories.
As for reframing what they’ve said…I didn’t do that, either. I said it’s POSSIBLE that they’re modifying what they say and how they say it to appease their audience (most of whom have been told that CICO is the rule their entire lives). Again, I did NOT say that’s what they’re doing.
That’s the scientist in me. I automatically try to find all the possible causes and reasons for something. I don’t take any of it as pure “truth” because that’s extremely difficult to do in the scientific world.
gabe
(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” )
#338
Dr Eric Westman, direct quote: “Do calories matter? Yes they do, if you’re trying to lose weight, or just for general health purposes.” See the beginning of the following video.
I have no idea how any of you are arguing against this.
gabe
(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” )
#339
Dr Eric Westman, direct quote: “If you’re trying to lose weight, the cream or the oils that you eat or drink matter in terms of the calories. So if you’re still trying to lose weight and you’re drinking the oils or creams without regard to how much you’re having, and you’re having more energy in, calories consumed, than you’re burning, then you may not lose weight, you might even gain weight. And I know we talk about not measuring calories and not worrying about them, and that is correct, however calories do matter. And then people ask me “well I thought you said calories don’t matter.” No, that’s never been said. I’ve never said that. People have said that out there, and as the science has developed, calories matter, but they’re not calculated in the same way on every kind of diet. So it’s more complicated than looking at the calories on the label, because how the calories are handled internally is very different depending on what type of calorie you’re eating.”
Calories matter.
PaulL
(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?)
#341
Actually, what @Rclause is saying, and I agree with him, is the opposite: We need to be losing body tissue (preferably excess stored fat!) in order to be in caloric deficit. It turns causality in the opposite direction. It’s one of the points Taubes makes in Good Calories, Bad Calories, and I think it’s a good one.
Maintaining that causality runs in the direction assumed by proponents of the energy-balance model requires as a corollary the belief that children grow because they eat “too much,” and that eating “too much” is what causes adolesent boys to lose fat and put on muscle and adolescent girls to put on fat in certain very specific places. I maintain the opposite: children grow because of their hormones, and they eat a lot, because they need that food to grow—they are not growing because they are in positive energy balance, but are in positive energy balance because they are growing. We know this to be a fact in the case of children and adolescents, it is merely in the case of adults that we stop believing it and become CICO-tic.