Can someone tell me if my thoughts are correct on CICO

(Daisy) #342

I tried to read all the replies. Got through 84 before my head hurt. I feel like you are all arguing from 2 sides of the same coin. You all keep saying the same thing over and over in different ways and just beating a dead horse. Let the poor horse Rest In Peace. Do what works best for you and let the rest go. Peace my keto friends!

(Running from stupidity) #343

That’s how you keep things going when you’re simultaneous bravely fighting the man and also not caring in any way. The cognitive dissonance is pretty obvious.

(Scott) #344

mmm, horse meat! Because of keto magic I can eat as much as I want and still lose weight. No that’s wrong, I lose weight because it’s tough!

Sorry but I had to.

(Daisy) #345

lol we had this all you could eat steak house when my husband and I were dating. He told me the reason it was so cheap was because it was horse meat. I told him he was full of crap, but he kept up his story so adamantly that finally I thought “no one who claims to love me could lie to me so sincerely” so I finally believed him. He finally told me the truth years later lol.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #346

How long had the horse been dead before you tried to eat it? Although, one would really think that we beat it enough to tenerdize it, no? . . . :grin:

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #347

I badly misread this at first, and it gave me a lovely vision of a magic horse that provided endless steaks . . . :grin:

(John) #348

Great video. I wish it had been shared earlier in this thread. I think it gives the answer to the OP. Your thoughts appear to be wrong from a weight loss point of view. There is no doubt that for t2 keto does wonders. I have seen post after post about it. The problem is when they get to a certain point the weight stops coming off. Then they usually turn to fasting to get it going again but thats a debate for a different thread.

(Cindy) #349

I’m SO happy I’m no longer feeding those growing children! LOL My sons are now 6’5" and I remember, during their early teen years, that they’d complain that they simply couldn’t get full. Luckily, they didn’t both go through the hunger years at the same time. We’d go out to eat and all leftovers just got pushed to the child in the midst of the growth spurt. It was amazing how much food they could eat! My oldest especially didn’t like the continual “hollow” feeling (as he described it).

#350

Well I’m not ashamed to say I count calories.

Yeah yeah I know “eat until satiety” - but that does not work for me. After a couple of decades of trying to each less than required and watching what I ate “avoid fat, eat more carbs” - I had lost the notion of satiety.

I ate until jam packed. I was worried I might feel weak and hungry as I danced around the highs and lows of insulin / glucose levels - so my habit was to eat until throughly stuffed.

The idea of “eat until satiety” might work perfectly for many people but for noobs like me it doesn’t really help.

With the accelerated consumption of fructose we have a further garbling of the satiety signal.

At any rate, now I need a second opinion - I need to use my iPhone to tell me “that’s enough food”.

(Meantime, yes I carefully count 20g carbs, and I’ve heard it said ‘you don’t have to count calories’ but I’ve also heard it said “do not over eat … do a reality check” - which I do. I count protein grams and overall calories).

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #351

He makes this argument in Why We Get Fat too, of course, and it’s a great point: it explains why we continue to eat when we’re sugar burners.

But your logic is flawed here; Taubes doesn’t negate the fact that CI>CO when we’re getting fatter. It’s just that “CI>CO” doesn’t explain WHY we keep eating, why we’re still hungry. The carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis answers that oft-neglected question, and it’s why we’re all in this thread together.

But in either case — whether you’re gaining fat on SAD or a vegan diet or LCHF, CI>CO. There’s no question about it. It must be the case because fat tissue is stored energy, so the energy going into the system must be greater than the energy going out.

When I finally got around to fixing my old cat, the removal of her uterus caused her to get fat. This is likely because the reduction in her oestrogen took the brakes off her insulin production. Her consequent hyperinsulinemia caused her to be hungrier, to eat more as a result, and probably to conserve energy. Either way, CI>CO = fat gain.

This is not to be confused, as I think constantly happens when calories are mentioned or “cico” is bandied about, with the simplistic idea that “all calories are equal.” They clearly are not. But that doesn’t mean calories aren’t relevant.

This is what I find so puzzling about those arguing against this point. It’s really inarguable. Now you can talk all you like about the complexity of the system and about how the human body can crank up its metabolic rate in response to an increase in caloric intake, or whatever, and we still are in the Bronze Age when it comes to understanding the biochemistry of how the body responds to dietary changes, but the bottom line is that energy measured in calories is a necessary — but not sufficient — explanation for what’s happening with weight regulation. So Taubes arguing (correctly) that carbs cause insulin to go high thereby forcing fat cells to accrete energy and thus making us starved for energy doesn’t negate the simple fact that this explanation for fat gain still requires CI to exceed CO.

(Scott) #352

CI CO is perfect in a closed system. When you add in the veritable your body can complicate the system it breaks down. Your body can minipulate temperature, heart rate, and other functions. So when closed it is 100%. I would say that when not closed there are subtle changes that do have an effect. It doesn’t have to be magic, the whole premises of calorie deficit is a small reduction over time will yield results so why is a keto diet that may not be lower calorie but be slightly more efficient is so foreign and breaks the laws of physics. I personally don’t think I will live long enough to see “the research proof” but the gambler in me says I am all in.

(Running from stupidity) #353

As per that paper the other week showing exactly that. But I guess they were just science deniers as well, because it doesn’t agree with a simplistic physics model.

(Doug) #354

Scott, I think we’re closed systems to more than a sufficient extent in this matter. “Calories Out” are not just those metabolized for energy. They are also those excreted and those stored in the body.

Keto isn’t magic, no, but it’s also not necessarily ‘slightly more efficient’ - in cases where it makes a substantial difference in insulin resistance, it may be the difference between the body being hard into “fat storage mode” with a resultant metabolic energy shortfall, and the floodgates of metabolic energy being wide open. A huge difference.

(Scott) #355

I call them keto deniers just to agitate but then again that’s what got me banned from MFP :sunglasses:

(Running from stupidity) #356

Yeah, but’s a net positive to you :slight_smile:

(Scott) #357

Calories out that are stored in the body sounds like an oxymoron and wouldn’t satisfy the thermogenesis folk. Just saying .

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #358

Finally, someone willing to admit that they think keto is supernatural. Thank you for admitting this.

Keto does not break the laws of physics. Can everyone who’s ridiculed me in this thread please take note?

If you’re losing fat, calories in > calories out. Period.

No paper, ever, in the history of mankind, including the one you think you saw recently, says that low carb diets break the laws of physics. That is outlandish. Thank you for admitting that you think keto induces supernatural fat loss.

I believe the paper you’re referring to was the study conducted by Ludwig. What it showed was that a high fat diet induces the body to burn more calories. In case you don’t recall, the study kept CI stable and measured calories out.

Yep, we are effectively closed systems, which is precisely why you can measure CI and CO. The difference is hormonal. And the fact that it’s so effective is what has led at least 2 people in the past few comments to imagine that keto induces supernatural, magical effects that break the laws of physics (someone else’s words, not mine!)

I have to say, I’m glad I stuck around to watch the moment when the anti-calorie crowd admitted they don’t believe in physics. I think it’s amazing. (EDIT to remove especially gloaty comments.)

(Doug) #359

Thermogenesis has little or nothing to do with it - it’s the disposition of calories after the “In” stage. Some go through the body without being metabolized, and are excreted. Some may be stored as fat, and for most of us, this is the most profound difference, versus them being metabolized for energy. It’s not magic, and it’s not an oxymoron - this is the single most important deal (again, for most of us) in this whole realm of obesity/metabolic syndrome/diabetes/insulin resistance.

If we narrow it down to calories that are metabolized, then we can talk about the heat produced, etc., but that’s not really at issue.

(Running from stupidity) #360

You’d be the only one who is happy about it. Your inability to move away from your extremely simplistic physics model - despite the obvious complexity and variability of the human body - is telling, as is your varying uses of the term CICO, which for pretty much everyone has a standard historical usage (“eat less, move more”), but which you insist on redefining whenever it suits, presumably because of its troll potential, along with your fairly ignorant use of (deliberately trollish) terms such as “science denier” and “anti-calorie crowd.”

Also, you’ve changed positions more times and more quickly than a couple speed-reading the Kama Sutra in order to try to stick with it. That doesn’t help much either, despite your extensive observations of your cat.

#361

Why?