The Fungster is talking about “What the CICO people think it means is that if you reduce calories intake, you must lose weight.”
I’d be surprised if anybody here doesn’t already know that it’s not as simple as that, in practice and over the long term.
Exactly. Which got lost somewhere along this thread about CICO or calories mattering, or eating too much or not enough.
Robert, seems to me that stuff is constantly getting lost in this discussion, to an extent greater than with any other topic.
I think the world of Dr. Fung, and have read almost every single one of his blog posts. I think he somewhat necessarily oversimplifies things for his target audience, and feel he sometimes goes too far - I don’t always agree with him. To understand that “there are two compartments where calories can go after being eaten” (rather than just one) and that insulin has an effect, there, is no big trick. Most of us are on this forum because of insulin, after all.
That really does not mean that the first law of thermodynamics is “irrelevant” - and it strikes me as funny that he states that right after he says, “It certainly holds true in the complex world of human physiology.”
I certainly agree that calories, per se, may not be the most important thing in some situations, and that not all calories are necessarily the same, here. That does not mean ‘irrelevant,’ however, especially in an unqualified sense.
I cannot believe that people are still arguing that the laws of thermodynamics don’t apply to the human body, nor can I believe that people are ignoring the undisputed experts on keto, including the father of nutritional ketosis himself, Stephen Phinney, whose website Virta Health shows exactly how the body is in caloric deficit while burning body fat, such that consumption looks high-protein:
You can ridicule me all you like, but I am right, and your “keto” (but not really keto) dogma is incorrect and ungrounded in science.
Then perhaps I need to clarify my position. The laws of thermodynamics do not apply to weight loss. Simply because you lower your caloric intake does not mean you will lose weight. PERIOD. Just because you increase caloric intake does not mean you will gain weight. Nor does adding exercise while maintaining the same intake mean you will lose weight. It’s not that simple. The body makes changes to maintain homeostasis.
But you can’t call it what it isn’t. It has nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics. PERIOD. The human body is not a closed system. We lose energy in the form of heat, by definition that’s not a closed system.
I’m finished with the discussion at this point. You want to quote science while at the same time ignore the very definitions for the science you are quoting. You cant argue your point that way.
I still stand by my OPINION that a person can indeed greatly increase their caloric intake, and maintain weight, without adding exercise to balance it out. The body can adapt to the additional fuel. That assumes of course the fuel is fat calories and not carb calories. Calories are not just calories. They act differently when consumed. Sure, ok, calories are just a unit of measure. But that’s a straw man argument, because we don’t eat calories. We eat protein, carbs or fat. All three act differently when consumed. I can add 1,000 calories of carbs to my diet. I would gain a lot of weight pretty quickly. If I add 1,000 calories of fat to my diet, I gain no weight at all. I know this to be true because I have done the latter. I had increased my fat intake by 1,000 calories a day, by accident, as I was new to counting up my macros, and was not really paying much attention to how much I was eating. It was maybe two months or so before I realized it. During that time I was still losing weight. Very slowly, but still on a downward trend.
I can’t believe you let this rest for two days only to return now to stir the cauldron.
The laws of thermodynamics apply to everything in the known universe.
Incorrect. Heat is just part of “calories out.” It’s energy you’re burning.
We do not disagree on this point. CI=CO during maintenance. The body may well increase its metabolic rate in response to any number of variables.
Not really. A calorie of energy is a calorie of energy. You can use joules, or whatever unit of energy you like. You’re confusing the hormonal response the body has to carbohydrate with the energy contained in that carbohydrate.
You’re not really saying anything fundamentally different from what I’m saying, you’re simply wrong about the science. I agree with you that if you eat 500 calories of donut it will impact you differently from 500 calories of steak. But it’s not because the calories “act differently when consumed.” It’s because one macronutrient induces hormonal changes, which causes the body to store the energy as fat, and the other macronutrient allows the body to continue burning body fat.
This is not accurate, at least not ipso facto. I’ve gained weight on strict keto because I was eating too much fat, so you’re not right on this point. YMMV.
Yes, you can gain weight on keto. There’s loads of people too scared to say it publicly in these forums (because look at how I’m pilloried for daring to question your bad science.) But my experience is common. It’s banal. And it’s because people ignore the science, and they ignore the advice of people like Phinney (see chart below; see elsewhere where he says that if you’re not losing weight, drop your fat calories.)
Yes, and during this time your calories out exceeded your calories consumed. By a smaller amount than previously. Because science.
Are you seriously going to accuse me of ignoring anything while you willfully ignore the graphic from Virta Health, aka Stephen Phinney, aka the father of nutritional ketosis? Here it is for you again, refuting, in a single image, everything you’re saying:
I see! So when keto dogmatists rant and rave, that’s just “discussion,” but when I reply, I’m “stirring the cauldron?”
I would disagree. I do beleive this is discussion. Especially when I’m being pointed out as wrong about something I present. That’s fine. It’s fair. I beleive there is nothing wrong with having a view point challenged. As long as it doesn’t lead into “you’re stupid”, “well, you’re stopped” so on and so forth. That’s not saying I disagree with someone declaring I’m a troll and not wanting to hear what I say. Opinions are like anuses, we all have them and they all stink.
I intended to point something out here, but I ran out of time. Gotta run. Will be back later to finish my thought.
Phinney also says that fasting is a bad idea… go figure… just because he knows a lot doesn’t mean he knows everything… bit like you?
So when you realized it . Was it because you hit a wall and had to figure out why you stopped losing? In my opinion if you hit a wall and stopped eating that extra 1000 calories a day then of course you would start losing again
Edit to clarify: I am not comparing calorie deficit from a non keto diet to a keto diet. I am comparing keto cal in to keto cal out
Yes, a person in a thermodynamic bubble will be a zero sum in terms of CICO.
Since there are no people in thermodynamic bubbles - CICO cannot be applied to weight loss.
Why argue textbook theoretical physics if it does not help.
Calorie intake, exercise, resulting hormonal changes and final total fat storage all interact at a much higher level than simple energy physics (which comes to very misleading conclusions when considered alone).
I used to get so annoyed that I’d start some new exercise regimen and lose 5 lbs in the first month…then nothing else. So frustrating! Of course, CICO people just assumed I was eating more to compensate.
I was joking with my boys once…said, If we ever get stranded on a desert island, I’d survive longest because I could eat a 1/2 sandwich and be fine for days. They just gave each other a look, started laughing and said “No, Mom, you’re the slowest…we’d just eat you!”
I really cannot see the point of keeping this thread alive. It’s far too long & full of nonsense to be of any real use to anyone.
Given the very flimsy “rationale” used for closing several others recently, it’s something of a wonder, indeed.
Yes but we don’t want censorship either …
I reckon it’ll sort itself out …
You’ve seen the other closed threads, right?