Can someone tell me if my thoughts are correct on CICO


(bulkbiker) #402


(Doug) #403

Todd :+1: :slightly_smiling_face: Perfectly said, avoiding the generalizing from the particular and lack-of-recognizance-of-this-forum that often compels me to argue. That sounds harsh, but in my opinion an overwhelming amount of people here already know that things are not necessarily linear, that metabolism can be and are altered by hormones, and that blanket statements often fail to cover all situations.

Agreed - I think that it’s not necessarily static is taken to be a given around here; that a substantial majority of us have or had insulin issues. Calories meant little to me for my first 28 years, and even as I gained weight for the next 30, it was only 5 pounds per year - when on a strict “calorie count” basis some weeks should have had that gain. Now that I’m losing I figure that non-linearity will be working against me.

:sunglasses: Now that is a “WOW,” and a great experiment. I do think we need more and longer experiments - the guy from KetoSavage did the same thing and gained 8 lbs. and 1.2% body fat, though his triglycerides were just about cut in half.

Definitely - but nobody is really saying that “it’s all that matters,” at least around here, eh? We know that stages of metabolic health can render that false, that the “Out” may not be independent of the “In,” etc. Such blanket statements often show false, the same as “calories are irrelevant” and “CICO is false” do.


(Running from stupidity) #404

Nobody sensible is.

and “CICO is false” do.

IMHO, it would be smart for people who are saying that “calories matter” to stop using CICO as a shorthand for that, because it has a pretty well understood meaning already, and it’s generally not what they mean.


#405

Wow indeed, but that guy is a body builder with muscles on muscles so anything he does is barelyl representative of what we would experience.

I’m not denying what’s he has done but all those muscles change the situation more than just a bit. Still very interesting.


(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #406

What’s a CICO purist? What do they believe? Be specific.

Why are you people arguing with me? It appears that we agree.

I think this is the study you’re looking for, or pretty close to it: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4583

Abstract

Objective To determine the effects of diets varying in carbohydrate to fat ratio on total energy expenditure.

Design Randomized trial.

Setting Multicenter collaboration at US two sites, August 2014 to May 2017.

Participants 164 adults aged 18-65 years with a body mass index of 25 or more.

Interventions After 12% (within 2%) weight loss on a run-in diet, participants were randomly assigned to one of three test diets according to carbohydrate content (high, 60%, n=54; moderate, 40%, n=53; or low, 20%, n=57) for 20 weeks. Test diets were controlled for protein and were energy adjusted to maintain weight loss within 2 kg. To test for effect modification predicted by the carbohydrate-insulin model, the sample was divided into thirds of pre-weight loss insulin secretion (insulin concentration 30 minutes after oral glucose).

Main outcome measures The primary outcome was total energy expenditure, measured with doubly labeled water, by intention-to-treat analysis. Per protocol analysis included participants who maintained target weight loss, potentially providing a more precise effect estimate. Secondary outcomes were resting energy expenditure, measures of physical activity, and levels of the metabolic hormones leptin and ghrelin.

Results Total energy expenditure differed by diet in the intention-to-treat analysis (n=162, P=0.002), with a linear trend of 52 kcal/d (95% confidence interval 23 to 82) for every 10% decrease in the contribution of carbohydrate to total energy intake (1 kcal=4.18 kJ=0.00418 MJ). Change in total energy expenditure was 91 kcal/d (95% confidence interval −29 to 210) greater in participants assigned to the moderate carbohydrate diet and 209 kcal/d (91 to 326) greater in those assigned to the low carbohydrate diet compared with the high carbohydrate diet. In the per protocol analysis (n=120, P<0.001), the respective differences were 131 kcal/d (−6 to 267) and 278 kcal/d (144 to 411). Among participants in the highest third of pre-weight loss insulin secretion, the difference between the low and high carbohydrate diet was 308 kcal/d in the intention-to-treat analysis and 478 kcal/d in the per protocol analysis (P<0.004). Ghrelin was significantly lower in participants assigned to the low carbohydrate diet compared with those assigned to the high carbohydrate diet (both analyses). Leptin was also significantly lower in participants assigned to the low carbohydrate diet (per protocol).

Conclusions Consistent with the carbohydrate-insulin model, lowering dietary carbohydrate increased energy expenditure during weight loss maintenance. This metabolic effect may improve the success of obesity treatment, especially among those with high insulin secretion.


(Doug) #407

Interesting question, Cindy. Hunter/Gatherer cultures tend to be admirably “thin” and muscular with less constant availability of food in general, and without the refined/processed stuff. Looking for a more efficient way to burn fuel - I wonder about this, since it might imply excess when lack/insufficiency would be by far the primary concern. Intriguing also - the “mind” of the evolutionary body and what it would decide; certainly would have implications for us now.

Women and men in general certainly do have differences, here, and among men the genetic differences in growth hormone and tostesterone production can have vast effect - we get the outlier “Arnold Schwarzenegger” types who really do gain muscle faster than most of us.


(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #408

Seems to me you’re arguing with a straw man. Do you really think anyone here thinks eggs and Oreos have the same effect on the body?

The difference is this: Oreos will stimulate massive insulin production, which will cause your fat cells to hoover up all the energy you’ve consumed, leaving you feeling hungry (so you eat more, meaning higher CI) and lethargic (so you move less, lower CO).

Eating eggs will get you fuller quicker and, it seems, will have your body burning more energy at rest. So you won’t need to eat more food, because you’re already full, therefore decreasing CI.

Calories matter, and the low carb community does itself no favours if it imagines that there is some mysterious, supernatural mechanism by which keto defies the laws of physics.


(Doug) #409

Mic, I agree there, but on this forum do you really see people advocating “CICO,” per se? Certainly - almost every one of us is familiar with the fallacy of blanket prescriptions of “eat less and move more.” Hormonal effects, the possibility of metabolic slowdown, etc., - we pretty much do all know this stuff.

I would not even go so far as to say that “calories always matter.” I’d say it’s wrong to say that “calories are irrelevant,” (as if they never matter).

I admit to liking to argue, to a fault, and I’m also conscious that being on a computer is often different from being on a phone (and that we’re just plain not all the same anyway :smile:). I’m just an old nut on the internet who, when not working, will post while watching TV, cooking, etc., with a desire to ‘cover all the bases,’ and spend hours on a post, splitting hairs and looking for that which is always true, or is properly qualified to be situationally true.

The flipside of that are people who have had a bellyful of “eat less, move more,” and the often demonstrably false over-simplified usage of “CICO.” No argument from me that that sucks.


(Doug) #410

No question, Alex - not representative of most people. Jason Wittrock is the same, heck - he was being supported by Bodybuilding.com, as far as I know, spent hours in the gym and was/is likely so metabolically healthy as to be almost sickening. :smile:


(Doug) #411

I think the problem is the “all that matters” part. For many of us, that is demonstrably false, while weight-loss stalls are a fact. That said, if we really do “eat less than we expend,” then we will lose weight, period, no question about it. That does not mean it’s advisable or sustainable over a long enough time.


(Scott) #412

Not saying you are but there are several that I have run across in forums that feel :
A calorie is a calorie and nothing else matters.
All calories behave the same.
Hormones have nothing to do weight gain - eat less and move more.
You can eat anything.
Nothing special about keto WOE
The only way you can lose weight is to create a calorie deficit.
The only way to create a deficit is to way and measure all food.
Keto has nothing to do with it.

Then to finish it off they post the chart “Why diets work” and they all work because of calorie deficit.

They get you to rephrase any idea, theory, hypothesis or point you are trying to make and then cherry pick to misrepresent what you were saying. If you clarify you are now moving goal posts. After that I cause the world to fail because I broke the laws of physics.

After awhile I would mess with them and say Dr. Fung has it right and the one that drives them crazy is to say I was doing CICO and it didn’t work. That’s when I break the interweb.


(Running from stupidity) #413

Well, I’m reading this here thread…

Certainly - almost every one of us is familiar with the fallacy of blanket prescriptions of “eat less and move more.” Hormonal effects, the possibility of metabolic slowdown, etc., - we pretty much do all know this stuff.

Agreed. As a general rule. Again, certain fallacious arguments in this thread are not part of what the vast majority of people on this forum believe or say, despite claims to the contrary for the purposes of fighting/feeling superior.

I would not even go so far as to say that “calories always matter.” I’d say it’s wrong to say that “calories are irrelevant,” (as if they never matter).

Agree again. (Which is why I didn’t use “always,” above. (Not saying you said I did, either. Far out, I’m being cautious in this thread :slight_smile: )

Me too, except I don’t watch TV :slight_smile:

:metal::metal::metal::metal::metal:


(bulkbiker) #414

I’m not arguing with anyone… especially not you.
I have made my view pretty clear.
If your body is a closed system then your laws will apply to it.
I don’t believe that is the case so your laws cannot apply to it.
Have fun.


(bulkbiker) #415


(John) #416

Bottom line is when you have truly hit that wall then you should take a look at CI.(there i changed the abbreviation.) It might just work for you.


(Scott) #417

But CI without CO is just not natural and I won’t stand for it.


(Scott) #418

:grinning:


(Doug) #419

Without CO one is dead, so no worries, really. :slightly_smiling_face:


(Running from stupidity) #420

CO one? I’ll take two, thanks!


#421

Guys I think it’s time we took seriously the real issue here.

@gabe I want you to know I stand by you as you deal with your PTSD, from people drinking loads of liquid butter, while making straw man arguments.

I’m not sure what the origin of this trauma was, but that doesn’t matter. What does matter, is that you receive the support you need, while on your journey to recovery.