Can someone tell me if my thoughts are correct on CICO


(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #462

This is Taubes in “why we get fat” talking about thermodynamics. Note that he doesn’t dispute that “more energy enters our body than leaves it” when we get fatter. He assumes this is true.

It simply stuns me that there are people who think otherwise. I can’t believe we are even discussing this. All because people think that if you can’t eat unlimited fat, then it breaks some “keto” rule.


(bulkbiker) #463

Obviously nowhere near as much as it bothers you…

Most of us are here because we question “authority” wherever we see it… You can shout and rant as much as you like but I’m afraid you won’t change a single mind.


(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #464

Thank you for your honesty, Mark.

I must say, I do feel like Galileo showing the Catholic Church exhibit after exhibit of evidence, but the Church keeps denying that the earth is round and that it revolves around the Sun. It is gratifying to know that nothing, no evidence whatsoever, will change you mind. It eases the burden of worrying too much.

I write these words for the casual reader, not for the dogmatists who are responding to me. This is for those of you who send me private messages of support. Hi guys! You’re not alone! Some of us believe in science, not dogma.


#465

Yes it bothers me.

But I can’t tell if we’re all in furious agreement or is this a real debate with crowd opinion A versus crowd opinion B?

I don’t engage every opportunity for debate because if I did that it would mean I do nothing else, it would become a full time job.

Do you reckon it is the opinion of a few people or the majority? (By “it” I mean “Eat all you like and the keto diet will somehow stop you from losing weight no matter what”)?


(I stand with @juice, say NO to Trolls!) #466

I was thinking more “Don Quixote”, but okay.

Gabe, upon further reflection, I am sorry I accused you of having a mental illness. That was totally unfair to those who truly suffer from PTSD.


(Regina) #467

May I make a suggestion? I see this over and over. A newbie posts in the newbie section, and then regulars, in the process of trying to provide helpful suggestions, turn the thread into their own private “debate.” I think when things get this out of hand that if you want to maintain the" debate", take it over to keto chat, or some other category. This is not good for the babies!! They sense when their parents are arguing!


(Cindy) #468

I find it very funny that you put that particular passage here. Notice that Taubes says “Neither happens to answer the question why.”

I haven’t read, anywhere in the thread, where someone has said you can eat unlimited fat. That’s an argument you keep bringing up as if it’s truth, but it isn’t. What people are trying to say is that it’s NOT about the calorie…which Taubes supports when he indicates it’s more important to ask WHY.

People here don’t like the CICO model primarily because it oversimplifies weight loss or gain. It also places blame on the victim. People are NOT objecting to CICO because they feel that unlimited fat is good. Somewhere along the way, you’ve missed that fact and need to keep trying to prove you’re right in some way…it’s like you really do think you’re the only one bringing the TRUTH to the keto masses. And you pick and choose what details you fixate on so once you’ve made up your mind, you’re not really processing anything else. It’s really kind of weird.

Another example…I list some ways in which Phinney’s image is meaningless within this thread (can’t speak to its place within the book). You’ve taken it out of context, the graphic itself presents very little information with no valid science supporting it. Yet instead of addressing those comments, you reply with “You’re arguing with the father of nutritional ketosis.” Well, no, I’m actually NOT, but you need to somehow make the discussion “bigger” or more dramatic than it is.

It’s just…weird.


(Carbohydrate Denier ) #469

I meant to come back and finish an earlier reply [wife cut me short, and you know the old saying, “happy wife happy life” so… it is what it is. I bailed, in favor of keeping the wife happy at home.

So I did put a lot of thought into this. Way too much I think. I over thought, second guessed, and ended up deciding anything I could try to say to explain my stance would seem like nothing more than bickering or picking at nits.

So to keep from looking like a complete idiot, I’ll settle for just mostly. I’ll declare my withdrawal from this. Glad we could keep it civil. Well, more civil than usually at any rate.

Then out comes the visual aids. I hate arguing with visuals. Especially when I have no idea what the context is. So as an example of why I really hate the use of them without complete context, I post this. I consider this one of the poster child’s of visual aids used for deception.

image

This is where the famous hockey stick graph came from. The famous 2005 presentation about global warming that had pretty much all of us looking at that and saying “oh shit. This is bad”.

I decided to look at it closer. I wanted to see more of this graph. The portion of the graph they used only went back 1,000 years. But why? What’s the rest of the graph look like? What does this trend really look like?

Well, it looks like this. Graphs can be misleading without seeing all the data. If Ancel Keys taught me anything, it’s question everything, especially the data brought forth used to prove something. When science is used to prove something, reach for your wallet, someone has an agenda. Science should be about truth, even if it doesn’t say what you want. So with this, I’m done. At least I’m done trying to explain my thoughts on the topic.

image


(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #470

I must say, despite feeling attacked from all sides, I am overwhelmed more by what unites us as the New Year arrives.

Look, obviously I think this issue is important. The (mistaken) idea that you can lose fat with a higher energy intake than expenditure leads to one of the biggest mistakes in the community: that you can eat virtually unlimited amounts of fat. @cw2001 I know you say people aren’t saying this; but believe me, I’ve heard it said. It is the idea – that was stated a few times in this thread – that keto “breaks the laws of physics” – that is incredibly dangerous, especially to newbies. IMHO.

HOWEVER:

I am overwhelmed, this New Year, by the idea that we agree on so much:

  1. Sugar and starches cause BG to spike, thereby leading to hyperinsulinemia, causing our fat cells to store energy and keep us in perpetual hunger.
  2. The food pyramid is bullshit.
  3. Hormones, not MERELY the “calorie balance/CICO” model, are the proximate cause of obesity and overweight – not to mention diabetes and heart disease, and likely cancer and Alzheimer’s.

I think it’s important, in the long run, that this issue be resolved. I think it’s very important to understand that energy balance doesn’t explain WHY we get fat, but it does explain HOW. This is really undisputed science. And I understand there are those of you that disagree.

But frankly I’ve said my piece. Those who will listen will listen. In the meantime, let us agree to disagree on the idea that keto breaks the laws of physics, and let’s focus on what’s important: reducing the amount of sugars and starches in the diets of ourselves and our loved ones.

Happy New Year my bitter opponents – who are also, simultaneously, my comrades in the ascendancy of this new paradigm of low carb eating which I am convinced will become utterly mainstream in the next few years. Happy New Year!


(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #471

Oh no! You’re a climate change denier! That explains so much about this thread… :laughing:

Let’s not get into climate change and politics my friend. I wish you well this New Year. All the best!


(Robert C) #472

Still not getting it are you.
Physics and fat loss do not mix.

CICO implies same calories in is same stored fat.
We all (including you) know that macro breakdown makes this untrue.
Sleep - CICO means more sleep is fewer calories burned so fat gain.
We all (including you) know that sleep deprived means fat gain.
Stress - CICO means someone constantly on 100% alert will burn more than a relaxed person.
Again - we all know highly stressed people retain weight.
Eat less and more more - CICO at its core - has caused a potentially irreversible sociatal trend that is bankrupting humanity.

Too many intuitive CICO endpoints exist that are clearly wrong exist to think it is okay to make conclusions based on CICO/physics thinking.

So no, don’t apply physics intentended for vacuum cleaners, automobiles and lawn mowers to adaptive systems - they adapt, your advice fails.


(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #473

Interesting that I just wrote a peacemaking post for the New Year and yet you still want to pick at this point of contention. This is the only issue we disagree on even though we agree on so much else. (Though for the life of me I can’t understand why; energy balance doesn’t CONFLICT with the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis, it merely explains HOW we get fat, and begs the question which then REQUIRES the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis to explain WHY we get fat.)

They aren’t mutually exclusive.

But the point is, as you acknowledge, we agree on all the rest of it.

Let’s agree to disagree for now and I’ll bring up the thermodynamics issue – and its serious implications – in another thread at another time. Because I think it’s worth dispelling. But another time.


(Carbohydrate Denier ) #474

Wow! You went there quick! :joy:

No I don’t deny climate change. Especially looking at the graphs :thinking:. It appears to be cyclical and not man made though. Of course, that’s based on the data at hand.

G’nite all. Wife demands it’s time to turn in. It’s been a long day.

Keto Vitae!


#475

Thanks - Happy New Year to you as well.

Hopefully the work of Westman, Phinney, Volek, Tim Noakes, Nina, Taubes etc etc … has indeed cracked the case. I think big name universities are now doing their own trials and experiements now. It is starting to feel inevitable but I hope it won’t take decades and the ruin of a few more billion lives …

It took decades for debates about automotive seat belts tobacco, aspestos, … but we go there eventually.

Cheers


(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #476

LOL! Let’s debate this another time. There’s another thing we disagree on, and maybe if we post in “miscellaneous” we can have a chat about why I think it’s clear this is a planetary emergency, unprecedented in history, and of an entirely difference magnitude!

Meanwhile, listen to your wife, and I’m going to make myself some steak drenched in butter and salt before I retire for bed!


(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #477

People are talking about “keto” as a fad and I think strict ketogenic eating will remain on the margins. But lower carb, higher healthy fats? That’ll become mainstream pretty quickly I think. This will save countless lives and has the potential to save our health care systems from overloading (as they’re all projected to do because of the “preventable diseases” whose root cause is the SAD!

Incidentally, that’s why when friends ask if I’m keto I tell them, well, I dip in and out of ketosis, but my diet is always low carb high healthy fats. No sugar, no starch.


(Robert C) #478

Hi Gabe,

Not trying to disagree with a peacemaking post.

Don’t want to start another physics post.

I think all have pounded their points into the ground (what, 5 to 10 times each).

I hope an admin kills this thread because it diverts from the basics.

When I sit down to eat - how many times a day or week?

When I create my meal, what is the macro makeup?

Should I avoid standard restaurants always if my lifestyle allows.

Etc.


#479

Yeah, I just tell people “I do not eat bread, rice and pasta, instead I replace them with more vegetables and I’m not afraid to put some butter on top”. “I also avoid sugar like it’s poison”.

Interestingly that puts me in at 20g carbs, proper levels of protein etc - I’m losing weight now but I’m about 5kg (11lbs) near my target weight so pretty soon I will have to work out how to maintain weight.

There’s a lot of info about losing, not so much about maintaining, weight. And long term compliance.


(Take time to stop and eat the bacon!) #480

Actually, physicists do tend to believe (often quite strongly) that is indeed true. One physicist has gone so far as to assert that all other sciences are subsets of physics. I am not entirely sure, myself, but there is a strong possibility that he may be right.

The problem with claiming that “the laws of physics” apply in all situations, is that you are then required to take into account all the laws of physics. So far, I haven’t seen in this thread any mention of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so let’s add that one into the mix:

This is the point that this argument is really all about, and I would also add that it is equally untrue that if you add caloric intake, you must gain weight. The operative word in these sentences is “must.”

“Calories in = calories out,” “A calorie is a calorie,” and “Eat less, move more” have a surface appearance of validity (just like “artery-clogging-saturated-fat”), but the reality of the human body is far more complex. And again, I will state that if the notion is true that all phenomena can be explained by the laws of physics, then it can only be true when ALL the laws of physics are accounted for in the explanation.

I will also note that phrases in physical laws, such as “in a closed system,” have a precise meaning that affects how that law can be applied in any situation. I will also note that the laws of physics are all better or worse approximations of the behavior of reality, and they are always subject to revision as we improve our understanding of how reality behaves.


#481

This all just reminds me of those little thought experiments we were taught when it came to explaining relativity. Like if a truck is moving in constant motion at 50mph, and there is a baseball pitcher on the back of the truck who throws a baseball, which the coach at rest on the truck measures at 100mph. An observer at rest on the side of the road measures the speed of the ball, and they read it as 150mph. Both the coach and the observer are correct, relative to where they are, because of the law of relativity.

Now imagine going up to them and saying “actually the speed of light is the same in a vacuum, it’s constant relative to everything.” They don’t take into account that, while this is true, all motion is relative, there is no universal reference frame because we don’t exist in a vacuum. That’s what CICOs sound like with “but the First Law of Thermodynamics!”