Can someone tell me if my thoughts are correct on CICO

(Consensus is Politics) #41

I liked Dr Fungs explanation of this better. The insulin is like the mail man shoving mail in the mailbox. Even when it’s full the mailman will force it in there. Made for a funny mental image. I wish I were a cartoonist.

(Consensus is Politics) #42

Reducing calories doesn’t work. As in eating 300 calories less a day will cause you to lose weight assuming the exact same exercise load. What actually happens is your body just uses less energy to make up for the deficit. It’s that simple. It’s like turning the thermostat down so you use less electricity or gas or fuel oil. The body is variable.

For example… before starting keto, my diet was 1800 to 2200 daily calories. My exercise level was nil. Mostly sitting on the couch, browsing the internet, playing video games. Sedentary would be an understatement :woozy_face:.

After going keto… eating 2800 to 3200 calories a day. Lost 40 pounds in two weeks. NO CHANGE IN EXERCISE. The main difference being the TYPE of calories. If it was the number of calories that mattered, I should have put in weight, not lost 40 pounds (now at 50 pounds lost). Simply cutting 99.9% of carbohydrates allowed my insulin levels to drop. This allows the burning of fat. The excess fat that doesn’t get used as energy after eating is wasted. At least the excess fat I was eating was just going to waste. Down the drain you could say.

This makes me wonder. If insulin levels are low enough to allow the burning of stored fat, can fat storage happen? I have heard conflicting views on this. I’m thinking it’s one or the other based on my n=1 example. So if fat storing is off, where does it go when eaten if not needed for energy?

#43

Hey Bob,

I think you misunderstand. You are comparing your calorific intake BEFORE keto, with DURING keto. I think we are all agreed that keto burns fat better that SAD.

Here is the point :- you say your intake while on keto is roughly 3000 calories per day. While still on keto, and keeping exercise the same, if you ate 6000 calories per day for a whole month, most people would put on weight (or at least not lose as much).

(Consensus is Politics) #44

I misunderstood the gist of it then. The entirety of my comment was about CICO mattering. Although now in your context I see what you mean.

I suppose if I did up my caloric intake by 200% for a month, seeing as it is already a bit high, I would probably see a weight gain. I concur with that logic.

And here is my but… But… What is the mechanism for fat storage? Is it strictly the presence of a certain amount of insulin? Insulin only has a half-life of 3-4 minutes. So within about an hour of the pancreas stopping production of insulin, it’s gone. Or, alternatively, can fat be stored by another mechanism? I’m always ready to admit when I don’t fully understand something (although I’m aware that I don’t sound like that. I’ve been called a ‘know-it-all’ smart ass on more than one occasion. But dammit, if it’s something you know, and someone else on the internet is wrong… :rofl:. That’s a joke son! I made a funny! It’s humor… I say it’s humor son! You’re supposed to laugh. That’s what it’s for. (Ok, Foghorn leghorn channeling is done for the day))

#45

I’m no expert on insulin or hormones. @RobC seems to have a reasonable understanding of that (or at least he explains it quite well). But everything I have read say they affect weight gain tremendously.

Weight loss/gain is definitely affected by a few very important things, and to a lesser extent by several more less important things.

I maintain that CICO is in the more important group. Not that it’s the ONLY thing in there.

(Consensus is Politics) #46

That’s ok, we can disagree. This isn’t YouTube where we’re gonna pound on each other until one goes away :rofl:. In my opinion, the type of calories matter more than the actual number of calories. But I will concede, if the number of calories are insanely high, then all bets are off.

I think at this point it’s like Heisenberg,s uncertainty principal. It’s both at the same time until you look at it. That’s when Schroedingers cat gets fat. (damn iPhone won’t let me spell it right)

(Ken) #47

Your “understanding” is really a Lack of Understanding. I suggest you read my previous posts on the subject. That way you’ll be able to post without the dogmatic misinformation.

#48

LOL that’s fine, I know what you mean.
Disagreement is good. At least it’s good for me, I learn that way.

(Robert C) #49

Hi @mememe,

I might explain well but - not a doctor or nutritionist or anything.

I’d like to point out why I think you are contradicting yourself a little and how you might minimize controversy going forward.

I think you should stop using the acronym CICO as it is triggering some people and you actually do not mean CICO - your message (which is correct) is that calories matter (especially if you are trying to lose weight vs. just get good blood numbers).

To lose weight, people probably need to add calories in the beginning of keto to restart slow metabolisms and then people need to cut fat calories on their plate to burn body fat after their fat burning machinery is up and running (not daily so not calorie restriction - but unpredictably, like food availability was in the past). As you rightly point out - in our current food environment food is always available and continuing to eat fat to satiety may disallow body fat burn (depending on whether what you are eating makes you feel full or - if hyper palatable for example - just makes you more hungry).

The reason I pick on the CICO acronym is that logically, it means that eating 2,400 calories of chocolate cake, taken in 6 X 400 calorie slices spaced equally through the day is EXACTLY the same (in terms of weight gain) as eating a 2,400 calorie blue cheese topped large ribeye steak seared with butter. CICO views the body as a hormonal-less calorie consuming machine and it simply is not.

Many of the non-newbies around here know better (and I think you do too) so, it might be better to stick with the “calories still matter for weight loss” message (both to add to rev up metabolism and to randomly restrict to burn body fat) but skip the CICO acronym usage as it implies something else.

#50

I understood you clearly for what you meant and that was sort of a real world experience I was looking for. Thank you!!

#51

Thanks for that clarification and I think you got the nail on the head as far as how newbies like me hear CICO. Just starting keto now and determined to do it right as I’ve failed in the past. And because of this I worry too much about the details such as total calories intake. It’s hard to come out of this mentality… I’m glad I joined this forum and saw this thread as yesterday was officially a successful me to say for me as data as consuming less than 20g of carbs and meeting macros, but I was discouraged at the end of the day when I realized I ate over 2000 calories (most coming from fat) and I know I only burned about 1900 calories for missing my workouts and sitting at a desk all day. I almost through in the towel, but now determined to continue Today! So thank you and Robert_Johnson.

Just a little background, I’ve lost 20 pounds since september by weekly water fasting 2-3 days with eating larger the following 2-3days, than fasting again in such pattern with weekly high intensity workouts 4 times a week. I tracked my calories through it all. I haven’t fasted as committedly since thanksgiving and looking to get back on track now and I see how many fast-ers enjoy doing kept at the same time. I was hoping that with keto and fasting I can get back on track better. Any advice is very welcomed!

(Cindy) #52

@Robert_Johnson is correct in that using CICO like this is a trigger. In fact, that statement above has me feeling very annoyed today. I’m curious, @mememe, about your weight loss journey. Because in a way, you’re correct…restrict calories, increase calorie output and you WILL lose weight. But if you’re doing it with CICO, you’ll also REGAIN that weight and have a lower metabolic set point than when you started. So now you have to eat less again for the next weight loss attempt…and the cycle just repeats.

I understand what you’re saying about calories mattering, but I think it’s wrong to put such an emphasis on them. People need to give their metabolisms time to ramp UP…focusing on limiting calories will just delay or stop that process. Also, using the argument that “Well, even on keto, if you doubled your calories, you’d gain weight” is misleading, because if people are truly listening to their body’s signals, they wouldn’t double their calories.

To put it in another context, use the gasoline vs diesel analogy. Eating carbs is like a car using gasoline. It burns quicker, so you run out of fuel sooner, which means you gas up more often. Diesel is slower burning, so you fuel up less often. But you’ll ruin the gas burning car if you fill it with diesel, so talking about them as IF THEY’RE THE SAME (simply fuel for cars) is misleading. You wouldn’t also intentionally OVERFILL either vehicle, which is what you’re suggesting when you mention going from 3000 cal to 6000 cal.

But if you listen/watch the fuel gauge, you’ll know when you need more. My truck burns a lot more diesel when I’m hauling horses so it needs MORE fuel…and then LESS fuel when I’m driving around town. If I said “Sorry, truck, you get 5 gal of diesel/day (calories) and that’s it, I’d be in trouble!”

Calories are useless. Your body’s metabolism will vary according to WHAT you eat, WHEN you eat, how much exercise, how long you exercise, the temperatures outside, if you’re fighting an illness, your age, your hormone levels, how much sleep you’ve had, etc. And taking that to an extreme (Your fuel tank WILL overflow if you try to put in 100 gals of fuel) is too simplistic and too misleading. It’s an outdated concept that needs to disappear.

#53

I am turning to keto for this exact reason and have turned to extended fasting ealrier. When not fasting, I really upped my calories to 3000 calories even. . I’m about 15 pounds away from my goal and once I get there, I would like to throw in occasional 36 hr fasts, and not have to have strict limited calories to maintain. Basically my biggest fear is to lower my BMR and I would like to find a system I can stick to where I can be lax about the actual number of calories but focus on what type of calories I’m consuming. Would you say I’m on the right direction with this logic?

(Cindy) #54

I think you are. If you read Dr. Fung’s work, he even says that it doesn’t really matter what diet you choose to eat, but that it’s the frequency of eating that’s more important. It’s a bit of a catch-22 though, because I think carb-centric diets make it hard to fast or delay eating, but it’s possible. So I would expect that when you’re doing multiple fast periods, you can be a bit more forgiving about what you eat on feast days.

(Robert C) #55

I think the carb-centric vs. non-carb-centric between fasts should probably be a choice made based on what you are doing.

If regular activity and weight loss is the plan - go keto.

If you are an athletic weekend warrior (cycle 100 miles every Saturday and otherwise live in the gym on weekends) then carb cycling to enhance performance might make sense in your weekend refeeds. In this case, it might not be hard to fast because you are probably burning carbs as fast as you are eating them - so they won’t be around long to keep insulin high.

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #56

Once again, I can hold my tongue no longer! :slight_smile:

Calories DO matter. They 100% matter. I’m tired of this trope in the community that calories don’t matter. They do. Everyone agrees they do. Everyone who understands the science, anyway. Gary Taubes, Eric Westman, Steve Phinney, EVERYONE agrees that calories matter. Except some folks on keto boards who keep thinking that any mention of the word “calories” immediately means you’re in favour of a high carb diet.

Look, Taubes explains it like this: CICO is accurate. You get fat when you take in more calories than you expend. (You really have to be willfully ignorant to deny this.) But, Taubes says, that has no explanatory power. The question is WHY someone is compelled to consume more calories or burn fewer calories. He likens it to asking why a rich man is rich, and answering with “well he spent less than he earned.” Well, obviously he spent less than he earned. But why did he earn so much? The key to making money is to figure out how to make it, not to know that earnings minus outgoings equals disposable income.

Same with fat loss: the key is to understand WHAT REGULATES FAT LOSS. And the answer is hormones. Eat too many carbs and you’ll jack up your insulin and keep yourself hungry because your fat cells are hoovering up the energy. (There are other hormonal influences that are less talked about, which is why, for instance, older people, particularly post-menopausal women, have more challenges dropping fat.)

Honestly, the number of times I hear that CICO is irrelevant simply pisses me off. I told the Dudes @richard and @carl about this at KetoFest Down Under and they were surprised that there’s this notion on the forums at all. I think it was Westman who said that "calories do count, but you don’t have to count calories."

I even put up a relatively popular thread on this topic (well, about a corollary of this topic – people who think calories don’t matter tend to advise other people to “eat more fat” as if fat calories have zero impact on the body, which is utter [spoiler]bullshit[/spoiler]):

(Bob M) #57

You may or you may not. They’ve done overfeeding experiments on humans. Some of them gain weight, some of them don’t. Your body can also increase your expenditure. (You tap your leg more, walk around more, run hotter.) This is particularly true, say if you’re eating a diet “high” in saturated fat (cause fat cells to be insulin resistant) and “low” in PUFAs (cause fat cells to be insulin sensitive). (Last is a theory by Hyperlipid and Dr. Eades.)

It’s a never-ending discussion, with no good answer. See this for instance:

Kevin Hall refuses to believe there is a possible metabolic benefit to low carb diets. Is he right? Personally, I think not.

(Robert C) #58

This is the problem - this all or nothing statement.

Per my example above - if calories “100% matter” then eating 6 X 400 calorie pieces of chocolate cake spaced throughout the day would add just as much weight as an OMAD 2,400 cheese topped ribeye.

We all know that - because of our hormones (and if we’re not insulin resistant or something) that these two add very different amounts of weight.

I am not an expert but I feel this should read “You get fat when you take in and store more calories than you expend.”. (There are people that can eat 5,000 calories of fat and not store any of it, your body does seem to have a choice about what to do with calories coming in and does not have to store it.)

YES - calories do matter - but not 100%.

(Teri) #59

I didn’t read all of the comments to this post, so this may have been mentioned, but here goes:

I have noticed that when I do go over my calorie limit which is often, and is always in fat or protein as I’m diligent about my carb intake, I find that I get night sweats really bad. I also tend to get very hyper and generally just seem to have an excess of energy that my body is getting rid of. The sweating specifically I find interesting because that is my body obviously physically getting rid of heat, which is energy. I wonder if that is not its way of getting rid of the excess that I took in the day before, because I’ve not gained weight… even though I go over my calorie limit often because I’ve been trying to gain weight without success. I started keto to control epilepsy while recovering from an eating disorder. I’ve gained muscle which is clear from my workouts and look, but only gained 3lbs in weight over 3 months.
So side note, it makes it clear to me that this diet works for fat loss, because I’ve lost fat… but we all knew that.

(Bob M) #60

What about the ketones that you exhale or pee out? Those are potential calories that you’re not using. You have not “expended” them.

Those “laws” of thermodynamics are based on closed systems. The body is not a closed system.

Case in point (in addition to my examples above): How many times have you eaten food that’s come out the other end partially or largely untouched? A calorie counting would show these as being energy in, but not all of that energy gets absorbed by the body.