Can someone tell me if my thoughts are correct on CICO


(John) #522

Key words are tried before keto not after becoming fat adapted.


(Doug) #523

To me, that’s the worst of all worlds for weight loss - the body trying to save energy, making us feel cold and sluggish. We’re evolutionarily conditioned to be frustratingly thrifty and efficient, and to store what’s not really immediately needed (actually on the “Out” side of CICO). In this age of easier food availability it’s too bad that we don’t have more leeway to just burn off the excess, rather than insulin resistance becoming a problem.

To me, that’s blaming the messenger. CICO is just saying what’s going on. The explanations - all the accounting of ‘calories out’ - that’s up to us and there is still more to learn. In practice, yes - the assumption that eating less would not affect how much we burn is a real bummer, and I’m surprised it has taken so long for a real dent to be put in it. When I was a carb-burner, my experience with calorie restriction was hard-hitting and fast appearing. 3 or 4 days, and I was saying, “**** this…”

True, but most of us here have metabolic/hormonal issues that mean the “eat less” ship has sailed. If we could go back and eat less - especially less carbohydrates - from an early enough age, most of us wouldn’t have got to the state we did.


(Scott) #524

Wrong! A surfeit won’t do anything to add weight! I call’em like I see’em :crazy_face:


(Doug) #525

Perhaps: A surfeit won’t necessarily do anything to add weight…? That would leave the door open for when calories that aren’t burned or excreted are stored as fat.


(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #526

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that this is still even up for discussion, but again I’ll say: if you take in more energy than you burn, you’ll put on weight. Unless you get liposuction or there’s some edge case I’m not taking into account.


(Pier) #527

Well, maybe two different things. I don’t think they are two separate things. As I, a newbie, understand it, that’s the crux of the “calories don’t matter” argument – that calories and hormones, etc. are interrelated and, therefore, to just say “it’s the calories, stupid” is inaccurate and unhelpful for most trying to achieve sustainable weightloss.

And I haven’t seen anyone say they haven’t tried eating less. I venture to guess that the majority eating keto rn probably have reduced (purposely or inadvertently) their calories. The point that seems to keep getting missed by the pedantic CICO argument is that it’s more than just CICO. I doubt that anyone on the other side of the argument will ever concede that it’s only CICO. What does need to happen is for the CICO side to concede that it’s more than JUST CICO. Then there would not be much difference in what the two sides are saying.


(John) #528

This is what I think some of are saying. I know cico is not the only thing but I refuse to act like its taboo. Treat it as a tool not the rule


(Doug) #529

Yes - just realizing that In can affect Out. In about 3 decades, 1/3 of Americans will be diabetic, if current trends continue, so I figure the word will spread.


(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #530

With respect, this suggests that you may have misunderstood what’s being argued in this thread.


(Doug) #531

I think things have boiled down to where most of us know what everybody else means, though. Gabe, my first thought was that it’s always “just CICO,” anyway - since that’s all we have, the energy balance, whatever it is.

That doesn’t address metabolic slowdowns and the profound effects of hormonal regulation, though.


(Pier) #532

Could be. But I don’t think so. I’m pretty experienced at reading and understanding different arguments (the judge I clerked for was more than pleased with my bench briefs). I think I have a pretty good handle on this one, or else I’d admit it. The same thing is being said over and over again and stops at the same place. So it’s fairly easy to gain a grasp of what’s being argued and where the two sides agree, but are not acknowledging it.


(John) #533

Cause courts are never bias. (sorry couldn’t resist). I do think you have missed on this one. No one has said CICO is all that matters. I have not said that once. For you to say that the CICO side needs to concede that its more than just cico tells me that you have either not read this whole thread or just are misinterpreting it. The only thing I am saying is that at some point in the journey when you have hit that long term wall you may have to take a look at how much you are consuming. Even on the ketogenic diet. And having different sides and people not willing to break from them is probably one of the biggest problems we have. Im not talking about just in the WOE world. The answer is usually somewhere in the middle and the only way to find it is if you are willing to look there.


(Doug) #534

I do see a fair bit of acknowledging, but there is a persistent differentiation in approaches. One side says that we can’t get around the physics at work, that CICO by itself is fine, that here there is really no reason to think that our understanding of the universe is failing.

Another says that metabolic slowdown and hormonal effects like insulin resistance render CICO invalid.

I would stick with the fact that if we burn more than we take in, we will lose weight, while agreeing that in practice huge numbers of people will not stay on such a program, and that it may be end up being a large net negative for them, despite any initial weight loss.


(John) #535

I must be lost then cause I have not said that CICO by itself is fine.


#536

My question is then why push something that we know has a 99.8% long-term failure rate? Pretty much nobody will disagree that cutting calories works short-term, but it works for almost nobody long-term, so why push it?


(Pier) #537

The point was not about bias. It was about understanding arguments. That’s what happens when you review the briefs of opposing sides. That has nothing to do with making a decision. But that’s neither here nor there.

Why is this thread still ongoing then? If the CICO side is not pushing that it’s all about the calories and there is more to it, and the calories don’t matter side is saying sure the calories matter but not the decisive factor in weightloss for most. You tell me then, what is the remaining point of contention? They seem to be saying pretty much the same thing, and yet the argument continues.

I mean, I’ve seen where @gabe made his agree to disagree post, which seems to be in alignment on most points with the essence of what the calories don’t matter side says. But then it again goes back to the original mainline argument, disregarding the points of agreement. And you, why do you keep saying that people need to take a look at what they are consuming if they hit a wall when they’ve already agreed that is part of it once they get hormones and BMR and things in order? It makes no sense to keep making arguments where there are none, and claiming that people are saying things they are not.

True, the answer is somewhere in the middle. My point is that, in this discussion, there really has been a meeting of the minds but, for whatever reasons, that’s not being acknowledged.

And, FYI, I have actually read the whole thread.


(Pier) #538

This is true. However, I will say that this question of burning what we take in is really where it gets murky. This is truly the case for women (I am one). The additional layer of hormones and their reaction to both plain CICO and keto (and other styles of eating) really make the CO part tricky. That’s not to dismiss it. But continuing to cut down calories to the point where a woman with hormonal complexities does continue to lose weight usually triggers other health issues first before the body stops defending the set point. So, the body seems to slow the burning in ways that are not well understood. Before the focus can really be on CICO, some other things need to be fixed. I’m just for a more complete paradigm.

I still think Richard’s example with his dog losing weight without changing CI or CO, once the insulin was lowered is illustrative.


(John) #539

I think you got me wrong here. Im not pushing it. That failure rate is based on the sad diet and yes it is almost 100 percent failure rate for people trying to lose weight. Again that is on a sad diet. I have only offered an opinion as to what may(or may not) work once you have hit that wall. Also I hope you dont think I am trying to be argumentative. I am seeing this thread as a big discussion not an argument.


(Doug) #540

John, there are any number of possible positions :smile:. I would say that for some people, even the most simplistic look at CICO works well (and obviously for some it certainly does not). Or that no matter what happens for a given individual, the energy balance really can’t be questioned - we have no rational reason for doubting what happens, whether they gain weight, lose it, or stay the same.

Totally agree. Here you have a couple different aspects - of course it’s not “the only thing” because of hormones, human nature, the difference between carbs, proteins and fats (the original poster’s question addresses the hormonal responses to them), etc. Yet I also don’t think that “CICO” should be taboo - the physics of it are undeniable. Where you mention trying eating less - and you identified it as being in the context of a ketogenic diet - that makes sense to me. If we are pretty good at burning fat, then we might as well burn our own stored fat rather than eat it, if we want to lose weight.


(John) #541

It sounds like we are pretty much on the same page. The only reason I am still on this one is cause of the OP. I think that their question has not been answered. If you read it they are saying that the amount of fat they eat doesnt get stored cause there is no insulin spike. I believe this not to be fully true. I think that the long term overeating of even healthy fats will slowly increase your body mass.