Can someone tell me if my thoughts are correct on CICO

#442

It’s not censorship to close a thread that is going absolutely nowhere though.

#443

Hmm, yes but I obtained some great links out of it. (Granted it might’ve been collateral damage in a war of words but the link content was high quality).

Given that the medical, food and agriculture industries as well as nutrition science etcetera etcetera, all suffer from a massive lemmings complex I’d rather see a hot debate from time to time than the usual herd mentality which has led us all down this dark ditch in the first place!

We may have to agree to disagree.

Cheers.

#444

OK :slightly_smiling_face:

I do agree there are some valuable links - I just think it has come to the end of whatever useful life it had.

(Running from stupidity) #445

But those links are still there, right?

(Robert C) #446

2018 has finished.

Drop CICO and make real references about how to better handle calories in (other than simply balance) and that may be seen as helpful.

(Robert C) #447

Do not just say “run farther”. Too many counter examples to that exactly perfect argument.

(Doug) #448

As long as we know how to eat butter and bacon, and to fast, we’re good.

#449

We just need to make some comments about a few politicians, and the thread is as good as closed. :+1:

#450

:thinking: Where should I start I wonder :thinking:

(Running from stupidity) #451

Fasting politicians to be certain :slight_smile:

#452

LOL!

You wouldn’t dare! :wink:

#453

Rules out anyone from Canberra :pig_nose:

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #454

Phinney is right. Extended fasts don’t have any hard science behind them, certainly not outside of animal models. The human studies show substantial and perhaps permanent reductions in LBM when humans go through extended fasts. You’re cannibalizing your own muscle tissue to feed your BMR. The evidence isn’t there for extended fasts no matter how popular it is in the keto world. After all, this is the same unscientific “keto” dogma that believes you can eat unlimited fat and lose weight, the latter of which is not just unsupported by the scientific literature, it is literally debunked by every keto expert on earth.

It’s so sad that you had to clarify this. Because there are actually people here who think you can consume more energy than you expend and still lose weight.

It boggles the mind!

You do not have to live in a “thermodynamic bubble” for the laws of thermodynamics to apply. Why do you think Ludwig in his ketogenic study measured calories in and calories out?

I have explained this to death. You don’t have to believe in thermodynamics, nor do you have to believe in gravity. Hell, I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so you can believe whatever you’d like to believe!

Don’t feed the troll.

The best part about Ketogenic Forums is that, unlike certain Facebook groups and other online forums, it doesn’t shut down actual science when it conflicts with keto dogma. Hence this thread.

Yep. I mean, only a few comments ago I shared the Phinney graphic, which everybody here seems to be ignoring.

Interestingly, I’ve seen no science from any of the anti-science dogmatists here. No studies, no RCTs, no graphics from Virta, nothing. And no rebuttal of the following graphic.

image
image.jpg692×654 95.4 KB

Will somebody explain to us all why Phinney is wrong in that image? Explain how it makes sense in a universe where “I’m losing (fat) weight and my CI>CO”? Please explain!

(Running from stupidity) #455

It does, actually, quite happily shut down threads on the flimsiest of pretexts, especially recently. Given the abuse you’ve dished out in here (and elsewhere), how this one has survived is a mystery.

If you read more of it, rather than just feeding your little troll threads, you’d have a bit of a clue about that.

Well, maybe.

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #456

I’m not getting into a flame war with you, but I think you’ll find that I’m the one being piled on and abused here. I’ve been accused of having a mental illness (see above). Among other things.

Please address the substantive points I’ve made. Perhaps you want this thread shut down because you don’t like things that challenge your beliefs to be posted on these forums. I can understand that, but there is value in hearing different points of view, especially when they’re grounded in actual science and backed by scientific studies.

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #457

Try addressing this question: if you consume more energy than you burn, where does that energy go? Please explain.

EDIT: If you say that “your body adjusts it metabolic rate/runs hotter/becomes more inefficient,” then all you’ve done is increased energy burn such that CO is now > CI.

I’d just like someone who objects to the use of the word “calorie” to explain how they think this works.

(Running from stupidity) #458

That’s the GOAL of trolls. That, and turning it into a victim complex.

I’ve been accused of having a mental illness (see above).

It was suggested that you find the relevant help. That you’ve framed it the way you did there shows the reason it was suggested.

It’s been explained over and over, and you refuse to acknowledge it, preferring to simply abuse people about being “science deniers” and so on because they can’t dumb it down it enough to fit your eighth-grade physics model.

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #459

image
image.png1576×532 82.4 KB

Mate, if anything, you should be trying to get the comment about me having to see a psychiatrist deleted. Instead you’re upset that I’m talking about the word “calories.”

No, it hasn’t.

Eighth grade physics remains accurate no matter how old you are.

(Cindy) #460

I ignored it because a graphic, standing alone as it is, is pretty meaningless. So is this bar chart based upon an actual 5’6" woman? Did she eat 1500 cal/day while needing to expend 2150 cal/day, and therefore lost weight? Did her muscle mass stay the same and the reduced 2000 cal/day is now just based upon her smaller size? And why assume 30kcal/kg before weight loss and then 32kcal/kg after? She’s moving less mass around, so did she also start a lifting regimen so she has more muscle (thereby needing more calories?)?

But this is what you do, Gabe. You find something you like and then try to use it as a simple explanation (somehow) to a complex situation.

Even if that bar chart is based upon actual scientific measurements from one individual, it’s pretty worthless as a scientific model in general.

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #461

You aren’t arguing with me. You’re arguing with the father of nutritional ketosis, Stephen Phinney. You’re arguing with Dr Westman. You’re arguing with David Ludwig.

Of course, this (mentioning all the keto authority figures and how they say CO>CI for fat loss) is an argument from authority, and is therefore a logical fallacy if unsupported by other arguments. But I’ve explained, ad nauseam, what ought to be bleeding obvious, in numerous ways, with graphics, references to studies like the recent Ludwig study, and more. Here’s another argument from authority: Gary Taubes presents it in all his books as an axiom. Of course calories in must be less than calories out for weight loss to occur.

Does it bother any of you, though, that all of the authorities on low carb diets agree that energy in and energy out matters? Does it bother you to be at odds with all the scientific literature?