"Spoon-Fed" by Tim Spector

(Bunny) #21

“Crunchy things (cholesterol crystals) in his veins“ …eeew

Glad you asked me to clarify what we are discussing here because this leads to more valuable information on very very deep levels concerning ketones, Vitamin C, in addition to CVD; there is something more incredible going on here than I thought I knew and it is getting even more fascinating?

I always learn more and deeper things than I ever could in a college or university using these very specific forum threads and can expand on pre-existing knowledge more easily.

Kudos to the software engineers :+1:


[1] Vitamin C treatment reduces elevated C-reactive protein

[2] “…First, blood glucose values will be lower on average, meaning that there will be a more favourable ratio of vitamin C to glucose, even at the same vitamin C level. Second, in ketosis, many cells are taking up ketones for fuel, and therefore much less glucose needs to be taken…” …More

[3] “…Prior studies have shown that vitamin C ingestion interferes with testing devices that monitor glucose and ketones, giving false-positive results[13]. Ceriotti et al[14] showed that vitamin C exhibited falsely elevated readings for glucose and beta-hydroxybutyrate in hospitalized patients. …” …More

[4] Lipoprotein (a) increases in a low Vitamin C diet?

(Elmo) #22

Isn’t that basically a strawman argument? Different people won’t have exactly the same digestion and absorption. So what?

John Q. Public eats something that actually has twice the calories as what he thinks. Over time, he gains weight, much to his consternation. This is not any fault of CICO. The error is on the part of John. CICO is why things aren’t working out for him.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #23

(Neil) #24

Has anyone found a US source for this book? I can only find preorders in the UK.

(Peter) #25

Of course it isn’t. You’re using an “equation” (supposedly) to work out what can be eaten, and every part of it is a variable. Maybe it’s just me, but I can see issues there for some reason.


Is protein considered a calorie in your view?

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #27

That’s a very good question and something I’ve been wondering about for awhile! I count protein calories in my daily total of 2700 to maintain my weight. But my understanding is that protein takes more energy to extract energy so it’s only used for fuel as last resort. I eat ~2200 calories of fat daily. From experience I know that I have a ‘window’ of about 2500-2800 calories and if I stay within that window my weight will not change. If I drop below that window for a few days or go above for a few days I will lose/gain weight. Usually, I will lose lean mass but gain fat mass.

I know that theoretically, I have to eat enough protein for daily maintenance/repair/replacement. So I use the formula 1.82 x total body weight in kg to calculate 120 grams of protein. I suspect that is not enough simply based on if I undereat for a few days I lose lean mass. Of course, my current BF is 14%, so there’s not a lot of that to lose, so maybe I’m OK. :slightly_smiling_face:

But, I agree, this is a very good question and I’d like to see some study or other that might enlighten us more. Thanks.

(Elmo) #28

If anything, I’d say that’s why it is a strawman argument.

This is saying that CICO “does not work” because of that variability you mention, Peter. Well, undeniably, you can’t just ignore the “calories out” part. This does not mean that CICO is somehow “failing.” This just means that people are pretending we don’t have to pay attention to the “out.” To say that because the “out” can change means that CICO is invalid is a strawman argument.

But it’s not an equation. It’s not that calories in have to equal calories out. People can and do gain weight and lose weight. It’s not necessarily equal. When you say, “what can be eaten,” this is with a goal in mind, correct? Very often the goal is to lose fat. All right, so let’s arrange things so that the body dips into its store of fat.

There will be different perceptions of the “calories in” at this point. If somebody is fasting and just using their own fat, we can say that the “in” has dropped to zero, but of course the person is still living and metabolizing - the “in” also can be said to be the calories coming out of stored fat. So, both the “in” and the “out” are variable, and people’s awareness and viewpoints may differ, but this is no fault in CICO.

(Elmo) #29

@amwassil The Dr. Fung videos: I don’t count calories, but it doesn’t matter - that’s personal choice and interest. The physical processes of our body continue whether we think about them or not.

I watched the second one - an excellent video that makes the point about insulin very well. But Fung says nothing against CICO there. He really only talks about the “calories out” changing, and that it’s a ‘Two Compartment Problem,’ i.e. energy can go to fat stores or be metabolized as “calories out.” He affirms that we’re not doing anything against physics or breaking the laws of thermodynamics.

So, it’s not as elementary as one might think, originally. However, it’s still very simple and the video bears this out. CICO deals with both “calories out” and “calories in.” To throw one’s hands up in despair and proclaim that CICO doesn’t work is silly. That’s really just saying, “Oh geez - the science is slightly more complicated than I first thought, so I’m going to say the science is invalid.”

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #30

That seems to be what you’re saying. Science is complicated, especially human metabolism. CICO simplifies it to a simple equation: CI = CO. That simple equation ignores lots of the complications that are actually involved simply because it makes it easier when you don’t have to think about all the complicated stuff like how different ‘calories’ from different sources are metabolized differently by different hormones. Or how your specific metabolism is broken and deals inefficiently with energy management. Or how different hormones work together or antagonistically or how insulin is or is not effective in doing what it’s supposed to do. Most overweight folks have insulin resistance that prevents fat leaving adipose, no matter how little they eat or how much they burn. CICO ignores that because insulin resistance can’t be measured in calories. Yes, calories matter, just not in the simplistic way you seem to think they do.

A Calorie is Not A Calorie - A Discussion of Thermodynamics
A Calorie is Not A Calorie - A Discussion of Thermodynamics
A Calorie is Not A Calorie - A Discussion of Thermodynamics
(Elmo) #31

No it doesn’t. You are putting that equals sign in there. It should be no surprise that energy can go into storage as fat, and that means it’s not being metabolized and going into the “calories out.”

Hormones affect things, certainly, but they are a mechanistic explanation of what is occurring. CICO is not disagreeing with that. That is part of CICO, as Dr. Fung notes.

You’re the one insisting on the overly simplistic and incorrect view. Take that equals sign you inserted out of there. :wink:

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #32

What do you say to the hundreds of folks on this forum who spent years, many of them decades, of their lives losing and regaining weight on various iterations of CICO diets? Some folks lost and regained hundreds of pounds repeatedly, many ruined their health and/or developed eating disorders doing it. Do you tell them they just got it wrong? That they didn’t really understand what they were doing, that they didn’t move more enough or eat less enough? That they failed not CICO? That they just didn’t understand how complicated CICO really is?

I suspect most of these folks understand CICO way better than you do.

(Elmo) #33

CICO is the explanation, not the cause. If you want to state, as above, that “calories in” (necessarily) equals “calories out,” then you are simply wrong. Likewise, people assuming that merely reducing the “in,” (without considering the “out”), will work well, long-term, for all who desire to lose weight, are incorrect.

I they were not considering “calories out,” or conjuring up an imaginary equals sign like somebody around here wants to do, then yes, they were wrong. You don’t think they were wrong? You don’t think they had a very low level of success?

I’d say a great many did not understand the implications of insulin, to start with. It is still this way for a lot of people. So yes - they didn’t really understand what they were doing. Yes, they did not “eat less enough,” i.e. they did not keep the “out” below the “in.” Once again, you can only be correct by considering both the in and the out. That human beings may go wrong there is just a fact, it’s not somehow “the fault” of CICO.

You can see that it’s really not very complicated, as in the Dr. Fung video. If we do not insist on neglecting the “calories out” part or conjuring up imaginary equals signs, then much of the battle is won. If they failed at weight loss, they failed at weight loss. This is a fact for many of us, me included. This was not because of some fanciful error in CICO.


Nobody properly measuring calories with measuring utensils is gaining a considerable amount of weight. People who are overweight are overweight because they measure with their eyes and/or stuff their faces because they hate their job, life, etc… emotional eating.

(Doug) #35

This is it. CICO says 3 things:

1.) If the in is more that the out, you will gain weight.
2.) If they are the same, then you’ll stay the same weight.
3.) If the in is less than the out, you will lose weight.

This is going to be the deal, no matter what. If we don’t pay attention to the ‘out,’ then what we do with the ‘in’ may not matter. This is on us people; it’s not that CICO is “wrong.”

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #36

So you agree they just failed to do it right?

(Doug) #37

I think this is also a case where things are not so simple. All you describe definitely occurs, but somebody who is insulin resistant (for one good example) can experience a lot of hunger through the action of calories going into fat storage rather than feeding their cells. Maybe they are losing a small amount of weight while this goes on, or maybe they stay the same or even gain. Yes, ‘emotional eating’ is then usually involved.

I think we just have to accept that it’s rarely sustainable to fend off this type of situation - most people can’t do it for long, most people will fail at losing weight if this is the case. This is not because CICO is “wrong,” this is because of human nature. To address it, we need to make it comfortable and sustainable enough, and fixing the insulin levels is often a good start.

(bulkbiker) #38

So nice to hear it was all my fault… Thanks.

Consistent if nothing else.


They failed to do it at all.

I agree. Eating only whole foods has worked for me and I believe this is the answer for loosing weight and maintaining a healthy weight.

(Bacon enough and time) #40

The caloric content of protein is considered to be part of the energy-in vs. energy-out equation, despite the fact that, under normal circumstances, almost none of the protein ingested goes towards supporting the metabolism. The protein we eat is broken down (proteolysed) into its constituent amino acids, which are then recombined into the proteins the body needs in its various organs and tissues. (Granted, if we eat a low-enough carbohydrate diet, some of those amino acids will be used by the liver to make a small quantity of glucose [in a process called gluconeogenesis] to be metabolised by the cells that cannot live without it.)