Stokies and CICO die/blow hards


(Porcinus) #50

Really going ‘Old School.’

Matter is neither created nor destroyed during a chemical change.

– Antoine Lavoisier


(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #51

CICO comes with a lot of baggage in addition to the simple energy balance truism. Hundreds of folks on this forum are walking wounded. And most of them weren’t wounded by refusing to count calories, weigh their food portions or exercise. ‘Eat less move more’ simplifies to absurdity the metabolic complexity of what’s going on. I criticize CICO, not because I think energy balance is irrelevant, but because all the other stuff that gets ignored can’t be summarized with a snappy little phrase.


(Kirk Wolak) #52

Well, it takes only ONE case of someone eating more and not gaining weight, or someone eating less and not losing weight to prove them wrong.

The thing they usually miss is “Studies Proved lowering calories, reduced metabolism!” Meaning CO is lowered over time… And the biggest loser PROVED permanent damage/reduction to the metabolisms, and regaining more weight with the “old” diet.

But I think Dr. Fung or Westman mentioned a case of a Tumor that caused a continuous release of insulin and the person kept gaining weight, when the tumor was removed, their weight started falling, ON THE SAME DIET.

Also, Westman (I believe) showed that changing the diet by removing FRUCTOSE and keeping people weight stable, allowed them to eat more calories without gaining weight.

Any of these, to a reasonable person, would make them second guess CICO… But not CICO-phants!


(Ideom) #53

When we get to that stage of realization, shouldn’t we admit that the science really isn’t wrong? The “CO” has been there all along - it’s plainly stated. It’s just that we need to pay attention to it.


(Kirk Wolak) #54

The problem for me is that CO is so complicated, it can only be measured, and NOT predicted.

If all you are trying to control is CI… Please explain when CO can vary widely, even in a single person, and lowing CI can lower CO… What’s the BENEFIT of “knowing” CICO?

CICO is nothing more than victim shaming: You ate too much, or moved too little. If that is REALLY the problem, why do they attack Keto for HELPING people eat less (CI).

Also, they leave out the Psychological Impact of constantly feeling hungry, and being hangry or irritable! When I used to work on controlling calories, I was QUITE irritable.

Going Keto fixed that. And it actually INCREASED my metabolism, had me feeling better so I felt like moving (mostly walking, but that’s 10,000 times better than sitting all the time)… And I wasn’t feeling totally deprived, and constantly fighting hunger. Which (as I have proved so many times), only lasts so long…

So, the science behind CICO isn’t wrong, per se. It’s stating it in such a way as to lead people astray!
Using science to get people to make poor decisions is what DRUG COMPANIES SELLING Statins do!

There is also science that says… Low Carb diets outperform most other diets, including low-fat diets.
And it explains how.

Finally, a good insulin hit turns off fat burning. The more metabolically deranged you are, the longer. Again, this gets back to WHAT YOU EAT matters… Completely ignored by the CICO folks.

The healthier you are, the more important CI becomes. The less weight you have to lose, the more important CI becomes. But swap 120 calories for a can of full fructose soda… And suddenly you are far more likely to end up obese.

So, in closing. CICO in what CONTEXT? (Maintaining Weight, or stating a fact? Avoiding T2D, or stating a Fact). Honestly, we’ve known about CICO forever… Why doesn’t it seem to help?

It’s messaging by the people selling you the can of fructose/sugar sweetened beverages!
I take it for what it appears to be.


(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #55

A couple more comments then I’m out:




(KCKO, KCFO) #56

Because it is often the app or the phone’s auto correction at work. You never know. I used to text someone who used Mo as his name in texting and every time autocorrect would change it to Monday. I had even added his name to the dictionary, but autocorrect is a strange beast. Be careful of it. And over look minor things please, life is too short.


(Ideom) #57

I do see what you mean. There’s no question that ‘shaming’ is usually counterproductive and that there is a problem with CICO, after all - it comes up for argument so often. :wink:

I think that in effect, CICO cannot win here - because of people’s differing perceptions. On the one hand it’s seen as a mere tautology, or that it’s ‘too simple’ - deficient in explanations, or that it has an imaginary equals sign in its midst, or that it foolishly lost its imaginary equals sign.

On the other hand the “CO is so complicated, it can only be measured, and NOT predicted.” Or the implication is that a physics-based approach does not make sense, or that since the human body isn’t a closed system, then some sort of ‘voodoo metabolic economy’ thermodynamic fantasy applies, when the truth is that the laws of conservation of matter and energy apply whether it’s a closed system or not.

“They” are people, and people often screw stuff up. CICO is data, and people may have reasons, both intentional and not, for interpreting it in erroneous ways. I’m a case of insulin resistance built up over a long time, and I too would testify to the effectiveness of ketogenic eating.

Above, you ask about the benefit of knowing CICO. I agree that CICO is not so “ultimately simple” as some people claim or allude to, but I also don’t think it’s “too complicated.” I feel that Dr. Fung has it right, that it’s essentially two ‘compartments’ - calories in can go either to metabolism and the ‘out’ side, or they can go into storage (fat.) Waste/nonabsorption isn’t enough to be concerned with for most people, and glucose/glycogen stores are tiny compared to the fat we can store.

It’s mostly just “either/or” (which of Fung’s compartments are we going to deal with) and insulin is the major switch between drawing from the fat store and not doing it. So:

I think it’s because at that point we actually know a lot. If we’re aware of the metabolic rate, we avoid the problems of the people who ignore the ‘out’ side and only think about the ‘in.’ While CICO doesn’t directly measure energy going into or coming from fat stores, it’s usually the only significant variable remaining, i.e. if the in and out are unequal, then we also know what’s going on as far as gaining fat or losing it.

Yeah, and that’s an example of what people do (advertising/misinterpreting/pretending), rather than proof that the science is somehow “wrong.”

No argument there. :slightly_smiling_face:

If Joe Blow is saying that it’s only the “in” that matters, then he is (obviously) wrong. But he’s not among “CICO folks,” he’s only looking at ‘calories in.’ People who pay attention to CICO aren’t the ones who make that common error. They are also the ones who realize that a slowing metabolism - possibly related to less calories in, and/or to high insulin diverting calories to fat storage - can be a problem, especially for weight loss.

Because people make fundamental, logical errors, about what CICO is. Or, they don’t pay attention to the whole thing. This is a fault of people, not a fault of the data.


(Kirk Wolak) #58

Here Here… They latch on to the simple explanation. Don’t look any deeper.
When I heard of the counter-examples… The tumors that led to massive weight gain. When removed, it reversed. Same diet was eaten and well-tracked. It’s COMPLICATED because it is a biological situation.

My wife and my friends wife… Neither have any problem with hunger/cravings/etc. They maintain their weight naturally and easily. Guess what we discovered. They are at 0.5 Ketones in the morning, even though they eat a SAD diet! Interesting side note. Under Stress… BOTH of them cannot eat! They lose their appetite. Under Stress, my glucose rockets up, even when fasting! Then the DROP b/c of the insulin hit, drives me to cravings…

And I do NOT believe EVERYONE should be doing a low carb/ketogenic diet… Only people that it HELPS. My same buddy struggles to gain weight. He is at 7% bodyfat… He has a TON of food allergies, like I do, and LOVES how he FEELS on Keto… He is PROOF that it is healthy. And he has PKD (Kidney Disease), as does his Ketogenic Brother… No issues with the disease getting worse!

Great Stuff!

Oh, one other point… At the 2019 LowCarb Denver… one of the presenters showed that mice can become overweight simply by powderizing their food. Eating the same amount. Because it spikes insulin more. Which reduces energy availability and stores more of it… To me, that was a HUGE Nail in the coffin of CICO [even the FORM/SHAPE of the CI can affect CO). He studied the AUC (Area Under the Curve) for the insulin response…


(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #59

@IdesOfMarch Here’s a little thermodynamic voodoo for you to consider. How many calories does it take to maintain your body temp at 98.6°F ? How about in an air conditioned room at 68°F ? Walking briskly on a bright sunny day with an air temperature of 105°F ? Or moving from the shade of a big tree where the air temperature is 90°F to full sun where the air temperature is 115°F ? What’s the difference in caloric requirement to maintain 98.6°F at an ambient temp of 20°F compared to 85°F ? How many calories does it take my body to maintain 98.6°F under the same conditions? How many for obese Joe, overweight but not obese Jim, normal weight Jack and lean James? What if any of us happens to have stuffed up nasal passages the day we attempt to determine the numbers? To what degree of precision and confidence do you think you can determine these numbers? Do you think you’d get the same numbers if you did the required measurements on several successive days? Or do you think you’d have to calculate average caloric requirements for each specific situation?

Do you think it would be a practical possibility for any individual who does not have access to a metabolic lab to know how much energy they require to maintain their body temperature at 98.6°F under all the various scenarios above and many others that might be encountered during a typical day?

Just curious.


(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #60

By the way, Bikman has suggested that so-called ‘wasted ketones’ (acetone in the breath and acetoacetate in urine) might actually be a mechanism involved in maintenance of body temp at 98.6°F. Those ketones were synthesized from fatty acids and required heat in the process. So part of that heat gets vented. That would be another challenge to measure accurately.


(Doug) #61

I’m glad to see these comments. We’re not throwing physics and biochemistry out with the bathwater, so to speak. :+1: (You know, that bathwater that usually accompanies the baby.)

Yes. (I think “CICO” is such a buzzword, anymore, that it gets peoples hackles up, one way or another.) You’re right, Kirk - we need to identify the context and what we really mean. This subject sure does result in people talking past each other, etc.

It’s wrong to say, “calories are all that matter.” Also incorrect to claim that “a calorie is a calorie,” (as simple as that, with nothing else affecting things). Since it’s this forum, I think that everybody reading this thread is aware that those are wrong.

Then on the flipside I’ve seen people say that “calories don’t matter at all,” and practically in the same breath mention calorie restriction, insulin, and decreased metabolisms (which after all are measured in calories). If those same people want to lose fat, they’re mighty glad when the body starts taking calories from their fat stores.

Maybe the word “calories” itself incites people. One could as well use joules, watt-seconds, etc., or even just “energy.” Whaddayagunnado? :face_with_monocle:


(bulkbiker) #62

Possibly being too picky (who me… never) but a calorie is a calorie… it’s a measurement of the energy contained within things but we still don’t eat them we eat food. That’s where I see the problem laying mainly.


(Doug) #63

:heart: Mark, one of the most brutal examples of taking things out of context, ever. You couldn’t even make it to the end of the sentence. :smile: I hope things are going well for you in dear old Blighty. :slightly_smiling_face:


#64

I’m confused. Did you loose weight by reducing calories (calorie restriction)?


(bulkbiker) #65

Yes all well here thanks., slowly finding shops that aren’t mask nazis and frequenting those.

Its not really out of context though because it is a true statement that “a calorie is a calorie” possibly the only true one in the whole CICO cannon. The bomb calorimeter can’t tell where the calories come from they just measure them.


(Kirk Wolak) #66

I don’t think they have to. The point is simply that it takes EXTRA energy. Laying down in room temp (76 degree bathtub) for 30 minutes will deplete my glycogen stores and lower my glucose. The point being that EVERYONE should know what tricks they can use. A walk is great. By my adopted mom is overweight with knee problems. She does Chair Yoga! Walking, and even standing too long is hard on her… A Cold Shower is much easier (less comfortable, but easier). A Cold soak is an option, but getting in and out is hard. WADING in a pool is easier on her knees, as it was mine!

And you have to warn people, doing these things can make them VERY HUNGRY for the obvious reason that it truly is “Workout Like”.


(Kirk Wolak) #67

The IMPLIED Meaning from “Coca-Cola” was that you can SIMPLY replace 150 Calories of PROTEIN with 150 Calories of Coke. And it’s the same thing. (no 2 calories, regardless of source matters).

I feel like asking is 1,000 calories of rat poison the same as 1,000 calories of meat?

We end up talking past each other because Coke concocted this phrase, which is true WITHOUT Context, but horribly false, especially when talking about eating a poison! There are MORE Effects than just the energy in what is consumed… Therefore, a calorie from one source is NOT equivalent to a calorie from another source!


(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #68

So we can blame Coca Cola for ‘a calorie is a calorie’? Another CICO truism that doesn’t really matter in the real world where we don’t eat ‘calories’, like Mark said but food. The contained energy is extracted differently dependent on the specific packaging and exactly how our metabolisms unwrap it.


(bulkbiker) #69

Agree completely but then again as I have said many many times we don’t eat “calories” we eat food. Food types are so much more important than “calories” which is where CICO falls down completely but I would still maintain that “a calorie is a calorie” it’s just irrelevant when talking about food and ways of eating.