Refuting CICO platitudes

(Susan) #21

Very true. What many don’t know is that sucrose, table sugar, is half fructose and half glucose. The PTBs have demonized high fructose corn syrup but not table sugar. HFCS is approximately half fructose and half glucose, but in their individual forms, not linked together to make sucrose. One of our enzymes can break the link that makes sucrose at the rate of thousands of per second and we’ve got thousands of those enzymes in our intestines, so functionally, there’s no difference between sucrose and HFCS. When the issue comes up, I like to ask people if they’ve heard that HFCS is bad for you, and then tell them about table sugar.

Also, fructose can only be used in the liver, while glucose can be used in much of the body. All that fructose goes in to making fat and that’s the start of the fatty liver, which is in turn the start of type II diabetes. Regardless of weight loss, my A1c is normal and I’m off all diabetes meds. Huge win and no blindness or kidney dialysis in my future!

(May the blessing of bacon be always with you) #22

I like Gary Taubes’s point that most people think that it’s the eating too much that caused the weight gain, whereas it’s being in weight gain mode that caused us to eat so much. After all, it’s quite clear that children don’t grow to adulthood because they overeat; they eat their parents out of house and home because their hormones are making them grow.

I’m old enough to remember back before the dietary guidelines were a thing, and the common wisdom back then was that it was certain foods (such as sugar, grains, and starches) that caused us to get fat, not the overall quantity that we ate. Back then, some calories really were different. But all that changed because Coca-Cola and the Sugar Foundation had to get us to stop worrying about consuming all that sugar. And we had to eat something to replace all that fat that Ancel Keys said we shouldn’t eat.

(May the blessing of bacon be always with you) #23

It’s 45% glucose and 55% fructose, to be precise. That makes it a bit sweeter per gram than sucrose, and therefore a bit cheaper (because you don’t need to put quite so much in your product). But the two are nearly indistinguishable in terms of their effect on the human body.

(Doug) #24

Paul, I hear you there, but weight loss is still a matter of taking in less than we use.

“Weight gain mode” - yeah, man, I was almost 30 before I started gaining weight, and that was after darn near 20 years of ridiculous, gratuitous, irrational greed for consumption on my part. I would say that in the end it does not matter - whether we talk about getting in “weight gain mode” or just plain gaining fat, it’s almost always because we did indeed eat more than we required, used, etc. There may be further pertinent questions about the nature of what we ate, but in no way do they negate the truth of what’s already in place.

If we, even after a long time of stable weight, use up our resistance to insulin resistance (if you will), put our livers on the road to getting fatty, etc., then it’s still usually because we took in too much.

And nothing above changes that fact that if we take in less than we use, we will lose weight.

Yeah, I can dig it. And still, the fact remains that if we take in less than we use, then we will lose weight. Misperceptions, or the desire for ‘magical thinking,’ i.e. like fatuous nonsense like, “calories don’t matter,” change nothing.

Hopefully, nobody who’s reading these posts totally denies the difference that hormones, insulin sensitivity, etc., can and do make for many people, and an increasing percentage of the world’s population all the time (at least to the point of this writing). I feel certain that at least a majority of the readers realize that that does indeed operate.

There’s still nothing that negates the physical reality of what we’re talking about. Even now in 2022, most of the world’s population isn’t obese, is reasonably insulin sensitive - even the relative few who eat a very high-carbohydrate diet (their behavior tends to keep insulin resistance at bay) - and for that group, as with every other single group of humans, it’s still true that CICO applies (of course it does) and that taking in less than we use means weight loss.

“Dietary guidelines” - whatever way the political wind is blowing at a given time has nothing necessarily to do with reality (surely we have had good, illustrative examples of that, lately, eh? :wink::smile:)

Ifod14’s point is well-taken.

Of course calories matter. And of course - when we are considering every person on earth - that is not the total equation nor proper consideration for weight loss, for everybody. To say, “It doesn’t matter what you eat,” may well be wrong. But pretending that CICO somehow does not apply is just as wrong.

(B Creighton) #25

That is awesome Susan! HFCS is actually a bigger culprit because it is much cheaper than sugar, so it gets put in everything. Since it is made from corn it is subsidized by our govt – essentially, the gubbermint is poisoning us slowly. Oh, but of course they still subsidize big sugar back in my home state…

(Susan) #26

Back to part of the initial conversation on how to frame keto and weight loss in discussions, one of the suggestions was to talk about hormones instead of CICO. (@OldDoug and @Janie) I’ll bet when most people think of ‘hormones,’ they think of estrogen, testosterone and other anabolic steroids. It might be better to say ‘sugar control hormones’ and mention that when those get in better control, you’re not as hungry so can eat less. Eating simple carbs (sugar) gets you a sugar high and then a serious sugar low as your body tries to compensate and that leads to hunger. It’s the sugar control hormone (insulin) that brings the sugar low and hunger. For me at least, hunger leads quickly to the CI part of CICO!

(May the blessing of bacon be always with you) #27

While this is true, thinking of the causality in this direction leads to thinking that the solution is to cut calories, whereas what worked for me was to change the foods I ate. Any calorie cutting I may have done to lost the fat I lost happened without my intending it. I never lost more than a very small amount of weight by trying to cut calories intentionally, and counting calories drove me crazy.

As Eric Westman says, “Calories count—but we shouldn’t count them.”

The latest figures I’ve seen showed that 30% of the U.S. population was obese. A further 28% were normal weight, but metabolically ill. Those figures were from about eight years ago. I don’t imagine the situation has improved any. And so far as I know, similar percentages apply worldwide.

(Doug) #28

Definitely - not all calories are ‘equal,’ especially for people like on this forum, to generalize.

Paul, yeah - this goes to how situational it often is. Preventing metabolic damage isn’t the same as dealing with it, necessarily. And ‘cutting calories’ wouldn’t be the whole deal, anyway, even from the simplified “take in fewer calories than we use.”

I never counted calories either, and the only thing that really works for me is ketogenic eating.

CDC says that for U.S. adults the obesity rate was 41.9% (ouch) in 2017. For the world as a whole it’s ~13%. Certainly the trend in almost all places is going in the wrong direction.

11+% of Americans are diabetic, and 29% is prediabetic. Both are on the rise - it’s an incredible epidemic.

(May the blessing of bacon be always with you) #29

The killer is that we’ve done it to ourselves. :frowning_face: