I'll Say One Thing for CICO

(Terence Dean) #61

Yes that might happen but it doesn’t bother me its just a trigger to get it rolling again. Its not like I’m going to eat 5 burgers with fries or totally fall off the Keto wagon. Straight back into my routine and eating to the plan. I just found it interesting that it seems to work on Keto n=1. :slight_smile:

(Beth) #62

I was one of those who suffered during intense bicycling even though I am 100% fat adapted (keto for 1.5 years). I haven’t done any significant calculations but I have been eating about 2 dates prior to getting on my bicycle (1/2 hour before) and then if the intensity is staying high or involves significant hill climbs, I’ll eat another one or two. Significantly more carbs than a daily allotment (1 date = 18 g carbs)! When I get back from the bike ride and wait an hour or two, I’m still solidly in ketosis. The difference in my riding is significant.

However, yesterday I was riding with a more relaxed (less intense) group of people. I decided to forgo the pre-ride dates and go full-on keto. At the 20 mile mark, when we were approaching a 6 mile climb, we stopped and I ate one date. Felt great the entire time! So in my mind the difference is definitely in the intensity.

(shane ) #63

The combination of CICO and Keto is by the far the most powerful combination I have found for weight loss. Calories, regardless of macro diet restrictions, still matter.

(LeeAnn Brooks) #64

If CICO worked, according to MFP, I would have been 105 pounds by now.

(Adam Kirby) #65

People have literally done this. He also did this and this for comparison, lest you think he completely botched his caloric numbers in the first one. TLDR:

5000 cals low carb: no weight gain
5000 cals junk food: weight gain
5000 cals “healthy” vegan: weight gain

Does this prove that everyone will get these results? Nope. Does it show that low carb specifically has a demonstrable metabolic advantage for some people? Damn sure looks like it.

(Sarah Slancauskas) #66

Completely agree with this.

(Sarah Slancauskas) #67

Keto has had a negative impact on my exercise too and, as you say, it’s the intensity. I can’t seem to give what I want to give (and was formerly able to) unless I target carbs before a workout. The difference between a workout with no carbs and a workout with some carbs half hour or so beforehand is significant.

(shane ) #68

I honestly didn’t even realize this was a debatable or thought otherwise. Shocking honestly that people think that calories don’t matter at all. The first law of thermodynamics tells us this.

I don’t need some randomized study off the internet to prove to me anything either. I am my own experiment. I have a food scale, I weigh my foods. I have a very good idea of my TDEE. If I eat over this amount I don’t lose weight. Eat under this amount, I do.

Now keto is the ultimate diet hack/ lifestyle hack I have found. Not arguing that. I love it. However to argue that calories have no say in weight loss is leaving all logic behind.

(TJ Borden) #69

I don’t know if anyone that argues that, nor do I know of anyone that says calories don’t matter, but that’s not the same as saying CICO is bullshit, which at its core, it is.

As covered EXTENSIVELY within this forum, the law of thermodynamics is absolute…and absolutely DOES NOT apply to the human body. The law applies to closed systems, which we are not. There are too many variables (some controllable and many not) to boil the way we process energy down to an equation as simple as CICO.

If CICO were true, then why bother with Keto? CICO would say that a calorie is a calorie and a 1000 calories of steak is no different than a 1000 calories of bread.

(shane ) #70

That is hardly what I am saying at all.

I see so many people on this forum saying that the have stopped losing weight and why etc.

Take the mystery our of it. Adjust your calories, track and make measurable advances in a direction that will actually be repeatable without the mystery of hormones, etc.

If I put you on an island, that had only enough calories in the way of fruit to sustain you but was in a small enough amount that it put you in caloric deficit, macros be damned you would lose weight.

Why bother with Keto? I think it is the superior diet. I enjoy it. Lucky for me I am smart enough to realize you don’t HAVE to choose one or the other.

(LeeAnn Brooks) #71

Except most times when I read about someone not losing weight and you get down to the details, they are in starvation mode.

The problem with CICO is 1) it resets bmr, so in order to keep losing weight, one had to keep lowering calories or increase activity, which isn’t sustainable. And 2) it’s not a linear relationship. Increasing CO will increase appetite, thus increasing CI. Unless you want to fight against your body continuously.
WIth ketos focus on lowering insulin, weight loss results can happen without the CICO struggle. Meaning its maintainable, unlike CICO diets.

(Ron) #72

@DvlDwnInGA You joined 4 days ago. How long have you been doing keto? Seems you might still be of the SAD diet mentality and suggest you research more.
This exert from @PaulL is a good start-
There are three macronutrients: fatty acids, protein, and carbohydrate. Carbohydrate stimulates insulin production, and insulin is the hormone that causes fat to be stored in the fat cells (adipose tissue). At the level of carbohydrate consumption recommended by the U.S. government, most people’s bodies produce insulin at a very high rate, forcing most ot the carbohydrate to be stored as fatty acids in the adipose tissue. To mobilize excess stored fat for metabolism, therefore, we have to find some way of lowering our insulin level. The good news, however, is that the body’s daily requirement for carbohydrate is 0 (zero) grams.

Protein stimulates insulin production, but at about half the rate of carbohydrate. Since we absolutely require protein in our diet every day, we need to eat enough protein to avoid malnutrition while avoiding eating too much (for one thing, that way lies ammonia toxicity). For most people, a good range to eat is 0.8 to 1.0 grams of protein per kilogram of lean body mass each day.

Fat hardly stimulates insulin production at all, so to give our bodies the calories they need, it’s the only really safe macronutrient to eat. The reason we say “eat fat to satiety” is that doing so allows the body to tell us how much it needs; for most people, a few weeks of eating a well-formulated ketogenic diet is enough to restore satiety signaling, a sensation by which we lose interest in eating for a while. So there is no need to count calories, because the body decides what it needs, and all we have to do is eat fat until we stop being hungry. For most people entering ketosis, eating fat to satiety leads them to spontaneously limit their calories to around 1500 or so a day. But there are verified records of study participants eating far more than this while still losing excess fat, so don’t worry about how much you’re eating. When given an abundance of calories the body ramps up the basal metabolic rate and even finds ways of wasting calories, whereas limiting calories runs the risk of giving the body the impression there’s a famine on, and it needs to conserve energy at all costs.

(Sarah Slancauskas) #73

Because CICO and keto together are even more effective. I’ve done CICO my entire life and have never been overweight (I’m 5’2” and weigh 109lbs) but keto appealed to me because it helped reduce cravings for sugary foods and for the brain benefits (I have the APOE4 gene associated with Alzheimer’s, for which keto has been found to benefit). Keto isn’t just about weight loss, but coupled with calorie monitoring is very effective for weight loss. Keto ensures you make good food choices which are healthy for your body and mind. It prevents the eating of harmful grains and starches. It’s a healthful approach for all.

(TJ Borden) #74

The core of keto is:

  • 20 grams or less of carbs a day
  • moderate protein scaled to lean body mass
  • fat to satiety

The core of CICO is:

All calories are equal. To lose weight you simply need to consume less calories than you are expending.

Not only do they not work well together, they are fundamentally opposed to each other.

(shane ) #75

Core?

Ahh I see. This is a lets define what we do thing.

Here is mine.

I follow keto, and I count my calories to make sure the amount that I eat is not over what caused me to “gain” weight.

How is that defined?

Keto that is tracked and measured? Not just eat to satiation?

Look I am on board for keto. I plan to continue doing this for life, I won’t however ever be confused for “why” my weight loss is moving in one way or another or has stalled. I have my tracking and measuring to account for that. And with that, I am done. Not going to argue this point. I will leave that for the people who make cash doing it.

(Pete A) #76

3000 calories of fat will have a different affect on you than 3000 calories of SAD. Okay, but that doesn’t mean how many calories you eat doesn’t affect how you lose weight.

Staying in a defecit you will lose, eating more calories than your body needs you will gain. Whether CICO “works” isn’t a question. It does and it doesn’t depending on ever changing variables. I think those who rail and are dug in against calorie restriction want to think of Keto as magical, without restriction, and that’s fine too. But that doesn’t mean those who are engaged in calorie restriction are somehow doing something wrong, and missing the mark!

(TJ Borden) #77

That means you’re still attributing weight gain to “how much” you ate and not “what” you ate. So our definitions are the same.

(Central Florida Bob ) #78

That’s a misleading comparison and for a lot of people, I doubt it’s true, depending on how big the calorific deficit is.

If people eat zero calories they starve to death. May take a long time, but it will happen. If you put them on a smaller deficit of pure fruit and the hormonal problems the person has keeps them from being able to access stored fat, they won’t lose weight. They’ll be miserable, low in energy and cold from their BMR slowing down.

No one is saying thermodynamics doesn’t hold, we’re saying the human body isn’t a bomb calorimeter. It has been shown over and over that calories in and out are not independent variables. If you increase CI, CO goes up. If you decrease CI, CO goes down. This has been shown in studies since at least the late 1940s. In Ancel Keyes’ real science paper, the Minnesota starvation studies, he showed when people are overfed, they don’t gain as much weight as the numbers say they should. Likewise when they’re underfed they don’t lose as much weight as the numbers say. When the experiment was over, they returned to their starting weight.

Many of the people here have weighed portions and counted calories for years. It has never worked long term for them. If it works that simply for you, I’d say congratulations! Your metabolism is healthy.

(TJ Borden) #79

Not necessarily. With a healthy metabolism, an excess of calories will cause an increase in metabolic rate to burn them off. That weight set point your body is trying to maintain works both ways. It will try to slow metabolism and store as needed to protect it, and it will increase metabolism and burn to protect it.

As Taubes has described, CICO isn’t “wrong”, it just doesn’t mean anything or really apply.

As he puts it, it’s the same as saying; “ the key to wealth is taking in more money than you spend”. No shit, but that information doesn’t help you to become wealthy. In the same way, simply cutting calories is not a healthy way to lose weight. If it was, then we would have see a few Biggest Loser reunion shows by now.

(Pete A) #80

Works for me :grinning:he who is working on a “healthy metabolism”. I still think there’s a herdism around the debate. At one point I was ready to leave the forum because of it!