Can someone tell me if my thoughts are correct on CICO

(Todd) #382

Part of the problem with CICO is that we assume these factors are static within a system that is anything but. If, hypothetically, a material change in the microbiome prevented much of the calories in from being absorbed then those excess calories would instead be excreted. That would mean still mean the CICO model is technically true, but just not very useful as a predictive tool for weight loss in that case. Heart rate, metabolic rate, heat and many other factors might also play a role here, plus many others we don’t yet know about.

In most cases it probably is probably true that CICO is a useful guideline for weight-loss, but for those that say that it is all that matters, I think that is only true in a technical but trivial manner.

(Empress of the Unexpected) #383

pre-keto
pre-keto.JPG1125×2436 377 KB

keto
keto.JPG1125×2436 372 KB

pre-keto and keto

(bulkbiker) #384

I simply don’t believe the “laws” of physics apply to the human body in the absolutist way that you do… there are way too many intricate mechanisms for that to happen and for us to be able to sum it all up so succinctly as “CICO”…your prevailing belief in the oversimplification of an extraordinarily complex process make you, to be honest, look a touch foolish.

(Empress of the Unexpected) #385

I am in no way involved with the scientific debate on this thread - but I do know that meat and vegetables are more satisfying than the endless string of carbs I was eating before keto. 1500 fewer calories a day on keto? I think that can certainly explain part of my weight loss. I also suspect the quality of the calories could count as well.

(Adam Kirby) #386

Do people burn body fat because they eat at a calorie deficit?

Or do they eat at a calorie deficit because they’re burning body fat?

(Empress of the Unexpected) #387

I would tend to agree with this. Appetite slows way down on keto. At least mine did. In my experience steak and vegetables are way more filling than bread and pasta. And have fewer calories.

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #388

The laws of physics apply to everything in the known universe. Your diet doesn’t affect the laws of physics. This is not an oversimplification, it is eighth grade science.

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #389

I addressed this above, and the answer is likely to be the latter. But the fundamental point that is (unbelievably) in dispute here is not WHY we get fat. Those who are calling me “foolish” and other derogatory names are literally disputing that calories in and calories out are completely irrelevant to weight regulation.

(bulkbiker) #390

Dear Gabe

" The first law , also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system"

Is the one I presume you refer to?
Is your body an isolated system?

" In physical science an isolated system is either of the following:

  1. a physical system so far removed from other systems that it does not interact with them.
  2. a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither matter nor energy can pass.

Thought not… so ergo the “laws” of thermodynamics cannot apply…

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #391

I think it’s hilarious that you continue to argue that the laws of physics don’t apply to the human body, and others above argue that keto breaks the laws of physics. The mind boggles. Needless to say, none of your keto heroes – Westman, Phinney, Taubes, Volek, Ludwig, Lustig, whoever – none of them would agree with what you’re saying.

I’ve quoted Westman verbatim literally refuting everything you’re saying, and you’re still arguing. The mind truly does boggle.

(bulkbiker) #392

Did you bother to read the bit that preceded what you quoted at all?

If your body is a closed system then great … your laws will apply… if not they don’t… its pretty simple…English comprehension 101?

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #393

I cannot even believe you are saying the words you’re saying.

You take in energy and you burn energy. When scientists like Ludwig go into the lab, they can actually track very precisely the energy going into your body and the energy coming out. Everyone – and I mean everyone – agrees that you can only accrete body weight when you’re taking in more energy than you’re burning.

What magical alternative system of reality do you think “keto” conjures up? IT’S NOT MAGIC. Keto’s primary effect is that it tamps down your insulin levels, thereby increasing satiety, reducing hunger, and enabling your body to access stored body fat. It doesn’t break physical laws.

(Cindy) #394

It would make sense (although this is pure speculation) from an evolutionary standpoint that when the “right” nutrients are available, the body would put on muscle. The most efficient way to burn fuel is via muscle, plus, obviously, muscle has a greater chance of improving the survival rates of primitive man. Of course, if a woman did this, it’d probably be the opposite (she’d increase fat stores) LOL because the primitive woman’s role was to nurse the babies…not as much muscle needed there.

#395

I’ve never really gotten an adequate explanation from people who firmly believe CICO is all that matters why a stall happens. If you believe in the hormone-theory and metabolic slowdown it’s got some explanation, but for those who firmly believe that all it takes is eating less than we expend, that the math is really that simple, they’ve never been able to tell me why a stall happens.

(Running from stupidity) #396

You need to reduce the amount of liquid butter you’re drinking, or something.

(bulkbiker) #397

Or maybe drink some more…?

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #398

This is a false dichotomy. Calories matter, AND the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis is the mechanism behind fat regulation. They are both true.

Again, this is not rocket science, nor is it controversial. None of your keto idols would disagree. Westman in particular. See supra.

(Running from stupidity) #399

No, that increases CI, so if your “science” understanding halted in eighth grade, and if “science” only involves physics (no matter what you’re actually looking at), and if you believe that a partial reading of a physics law is the entirety of “science”, then you’ll get fat.

(bulkbiker) #400

Oh right… thanks for that non dogmatic explanation… much appreciated…!
:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

(Scott) #401

I can’t help but notice that it is typically the CICO purists that insert the word magic into discussions like this. I am not saying that calories just disappear. I am saying that if on a keto WOE I eat more fat and fat has more calories than carbs do. I feel like I am eating about the same amount of calories and I am losing weight. I have done this without any forced calorie restriction and eat until full. I could do a study on myself and count calories and what happens on both diets but that would put me back to doing what I disliked, counting to deficit. Even if I produced any shred of meaningful data it would be labeled a sample of 1 and not be significant. I doubt that I will be around when this is resolved but lets just say that a two groups each eat 2500 calories and the keto group has a weight decrease and the not keto group sees a weight maintained or increased. The keto group’s CO would have to be greater. It could be expelled, burned or given off as heat ect. No laws are broken but it would mean that the keto WOE could possibly have the same CI or possibly higher (small number here) and still lose weight. This is the study I would like to see for the fun of it. Of course this is all very sketchy and thin but may be possible. It could also be possible that without the pain in a$$ counting, measuring, and starving to deficit I have been creating a painless pleasant way to caloric deficit and this whole conversation is just wasted energy (CO)