Stokies and CICO die/blow hards

(bulkbiker) #70

Sorry Michael hadn’t read your response before replying…

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #71

@MarkGossage I could have '@'d you, but didn’t think of it. :roll_eyes:

(Ideom) #72

The only thing I would say here is that it really isn’t anything “against” CICO; it’s just the ‘calories out’ changing as you mentioned. To ignore that is a fundamental logical error on the part of people, that ‘not looking any deeper’ as you also mentioned, i.e. let’s not blame the data if we’re going to ignore part of it.

It really is amazing, though - who would have guessed that powderizing food made a difference, let alone the difference between overweight and not overweight? So now the mice children can take this study and refute their parents admonishments to “Chew your food!”

Even more thread drift, but that ‘Area Under the Curve’ - I’m reminded of humans and that the time of day when food is consumed likewise makes a difference. For most of us, it’s really better to eat earlier in the day, versus later. Studies I’ve seen:

  • Eating in the evening versus morning brought a glucose response (area under the curve) twice as large.

  • Eating in the evening versus morning brought an insulin response (area under the curve) 25% to 50% larger.

  • Our hunger rhythms make the effects even worse - we have a peak in hunger around 8 pm and a trough in hunger around 8 am.

  • Eating the largest portion of calories later in the day (like having a “big dinner”) meant people - examined after a period of 6 years -

  • Were twice as likely to be obese.

  • Were twice as likely to be diabetic.

  • were 50% more likely to have metabolic syndrome.

Studies have their limitations, and people are not all the same, but it does seem like there’s a good bit of evidence which should be taken into account.

Higher glucose and insulin: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1566835/
Higher hunger: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3655529/
Higher obesity, diabetes, etc: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4177396/

(bulkbiker) #73

I hadn’t seen this twitter thread from @amber before but found it enlightening (as is everything she writes…)

A timely appearance on my twitter feed

https://twitter.com/KetoCarnivore/status/1217869797448241152

(Ideom) #74

Well Sir, that’s a somewhat complex question. I assume you know this, already, and indeed you mention one of the complications later, i.e. “ambient temp.” There are other factors that must be controlled for.

It appears that you are angling toward a conclusion that amounts to, “Since this stuff is complex, we should just ignore the science - it’s all a bunch of nonsense.” History is full of illuminating examples of why this thinking is wrong. In reality, it’s not necessarily “voodoo” even if we are not able to measure it, as historically with our technology not yet being apt. Humanity’s recent and ongoing work with the Higgs Boson is a good illustration of this.

To a very high degree of precision. In this case we are able to measure it. (Okay, so what does “high” mean, there? :wink:) As a practical matter for most of us, a small percentage of possible error will be okay, i.e. in our considerations of calories, if we are off by 2% or 3%, it’s not going to be a big deal. If total calories are 2500, then we’re talking about 50 - 75 calories, eh?

So, hook the person up to a good indirect calorimeter, and have at it. The best ones have less than 1% error, even as low as ~0.25%. Out of that 2500 calories, we are now down to 6 - 25 calories of error.

If that is not a satisfying amount of accuracy, then let’s go with direct calorimetry - put the person inside the calorimeter. When you ask, “How many calories…” you are talking about energy over time, as with how many calories per day, per hour, etc. So, do many trials, always controlling for other variables, and get an average in the end. Very likely, we will know the figure to a fraction of a calorie.

The question itself also matters - what concept are we addressing? Human metabolism is exothermic, overall - if the subject continues living, then he’s producing substantial heat, anyway, without regard to external temperature. So, if we want to control for all other factors, to “guard out” the metabolic goings-on that proceed regardless, then we need to do series of trials at different temperatures.

This would involve maintaining the same relative humidity, diet, activity level, etc. People do (naturally) use more energy when it’s colder than normal body temperature. (And interestingly - there is a point where when it’s hot they will be using the same increased energy, i.e. they are expending energy to keep cool.)

Some work has been done on this - there’s one study about variation in body temperature and energy expenditure in response to mild cold - 9 (Dutch, I believe) guys who averaged 76 kg or 168 lbs were studied at 16° and 22°C (61-72°F). At the colder temperature they used ~5% more energy. Note that they did not maintain the exact same body temperature - they were a little colder in the colder environment. To figure the exact caloric requirement to maintain the same body temperature, their activity would have had to have been raised slightly to achieve the same temperature as at 22°C.

As above, more trials are better than fewer. And on every day, the other possible confounding influences would have to be controlled for.

Also as above, it depends on exactly what you are asking for. If we want a straight up “response to temperature” caloric solution then temperature needs to be the only variable.

Not nearly enough information is given there. The answer may be yes or no. There is a point of thermoneutrality where we are not expending any energy at all to stay warm. The bigger we are, the lesser that temperature is. A mouse, for example, uses a lot of energy, more than 1/3 of total energy, to stay warm at 22°C. For a full-grown normal or obese person, it’s not much at all at that temperature, despite it being 15-16°C less than body temperature. Does the person know what their thermoneutrality temperature is? Your question does not give that information, for example.

:slightly_smiling_face: But of course in general the answer will essentially always be “no.”

And so what? What if I’d just said the answers to your questions are all “no”? That we are not naturally equipped to measure energy - directly, in that way - does not alter the physical and biochemical realities of life.

I’m not accusing you of being truly “anti-science.” Above, you say you don’t think the “energy balance is irrelevant.” That is a good beginning.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #75

@IdesOfMarch The point of the above example was simply to demonstrate the impossibility of determining energy inputs and outputs precisely in the illustrated example of maintaining body temp. Yes, of course, if you could determine all the inputs and all the outputs precisely, you could answer this exact number of calories are required under this set of circumstances. But we can’t do that, and you know it, because the number of known and possibly unknown variables are high.

As for general applicability of thermodynamics to metabolism, I said this a year ago:

So please stop implying that I am ‘anti-science’ or illiterate. It says a lot about you that you continually couch your arguments to imply those who disagree are less informed than you. What I have said about CICO is that it simplifies a very complex thermodynamic system to the point of absurdity by ignoring a large number of very important processes that affect the human system just as significantly and in many instances moreso than merely counting calories. Starting with the uncertainty of exactly how many calories you are actually ingesting and exactly how efficiently your metabolism extracts whatever energy is there. CICO is not just a statement about thermodynamics. It’s a system/theory of maintenance that brings with it a lot of baggage that has little or no thermodynamic/science to support it.

A Calorie is Not A Calorie - A Discussion of Thermodynamics
#76

Aren’t calories recycled?

(Kevin) #77

@ctviggen posted a good study here: Check out my comment I made at KetoCon2019

Science isn’t always easy, nor will a proper interpretation often ‘fit on a bumper sticker.’ But that study shows that if you isolate what you want to find (you’re controlling for the other factors), then we really can know a lot.

In looking through this thread…

Well, ‘CICO’ is a snappy little phrase. If you want something more in-depth, more all-encompassing, then that approach will necessarily be more complex, as with all those questions you asked @IdesOfMarch 15 or 16 posts above this one. It’s irrational to then turn around and criticize CICO for its simplicity. The energy balance is indeed important - we know valuable things from that, alone (and it relates to one of the most major reasons if not the primary reason that we’re all on this forum). It’s not enumerating all the biochemical “whys,” however, nor does it claim to.

I think it’s like Dr. Fung’s “Two Compartment Model/Problem,” which is actually three things. Energy (the 1st thing) doesn’t just go to ‘calories out’ (the 2nd thing). It can also go to fat storage (the 3rd thing).

With CICO, there are the data-driven people who pay attention to the whole thing, realize its constraints and also its benefits - we need not limit ourselves to ‘in & out’ because we can derive movement into or from fat storage by “in minus out” or vice-versa. (1st group.)

Then there are people who don’t approach CICO the right way. They forget about the ‘out’ part, act like merely “counting calories” (the 'in) will make for long term weight-loss for people, nothing more required, etc. (2nd group.)

Then there are people (3rd group) who criticize the 2nd group (and they are right in doing so), yet also the 1st group. It’s as if they personalize CICO and assign the human errors from the 2nd group to it. This is just as incorrect as the errors the 2nd group are making.

An example:

This is true, as stated. Yet this has no bearing on the validity of CICO. ‘CICO’ doesn’t specify anything beyond “calories” and where they’re heading. If it was ‘CBMT…’ (‘calories by macronutrient type, etc…’) then it would be different.

I have heard of her and I think she’s really good on sticking to the science. (Although I think Twitter’s character limit, even improved as it is, is more for brief thoughts than ‘complete truth’ - and this effect is noticeable in some of her replies.) Some quotes from that Twitter thing:

When we say “use up calories” we mean actually metabolise some material for the energy. So, a caloric deficit just means that we used more energy than could be accounted for by the amount available from what we ate.

(Okay, but there’s more to it than that…) :neutral_face: (She needs to clarify that.)

Any time you have a caloric deficit you must have less material than what you started with, so you would weigh less.

(Stays true to the laws of conservation of matter and energy.) :+1:

Likewise, any time you have less material than you started with, as long as you didn’t remove it in some other way—amputation and urinating sugar don’t count!

(Okay, there’s some clarification - she touches on physical removal and waste. ‘Amputation’ and the like really don’t count. :smile: It’s understood that we’re not talking about that. I gotta disagree about urinating sugar, though - it’s not a healthy condition nor is it commonly found, but there a loss is a loss. Another person mentions this below, i.e. “waste is material.” I’ve got the luxury of being able to compose this prior to posting it - I’m aware that making sequential Twitter replies makes things harder in that respect. Since she’s talking about “less material” we know that fat stores are not increasing, thus we know that either material/calories etc. are being metabolized or going out as waste. Those are the only 2 avenues remaining.)

Aaaaaaand… I’ve got a long post. :astonished:

(Scott) #78

The body can be efficient utilizing calories and it can also be efficient in wasting them. Plug that into your closed system.

(bulkbiker) #79

Plus it can turn WAT into BAT to create heat (re Bikman)

(Doug) #80

:smile:

But in the spirit of things, not like this:

GasHoseCar

Taking things out of context:

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #81

Let’s start with Dr Jason Fung:




19%20PM


44%20PM

Wrap it up with this link, which has some very cool charts that illustrate complexity:

(Kirk Wolak) #82

Nice…

Another key point from Bikman, I believe. When you are peeing out ketones… Does that count toward CO? From an Energy balance, those calories were NEITHER consumed nor converted to actual energy. And that is something that may happen during fasting, and certainly when I exercise fasted as my body ramps up ketone production… (And why it stops happening when you keto adapt). So some of that initial weight loss is literally a purging of excess energy your body does not know what to do with yet…

Thank you to EVERYONE… Through disagreements, and posting our different viewpoints…
I feel I have learned something, and I can better make my argument.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #83

I think it does. Ketones are modified fatty acids, which are stored energy so the ketones are stored energy just as well. They did CI at some point or resulted from some other CI so when you piss/breathe them out unused, they contribute to CO. In one of his videos, possibly the one on BAT, Bikman jokes about losing weight/fat in keto just by pissing and breathing. Yet it may actually add up to significant amounts over time.

#84

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #85

For anyone interested or just curious, I just created the following new topic:

This pretty much demolishes CICO once and for all. And the linked article is from 2004! So, the science demonstrating exactly how CICO miscontrues thermodynamics has been out there for 16 years.

(Doug) #86

People have been firing this thread up today. All the time I’m seeing like

Bigamwassilreply
Bigamwassilreply.png820×270 51.8 KB

and

bigidesreply
bigidesreply.png820×270 35.5 KB

It’s a hootenanny! :cowboy_hat_face::cowboy_hat_face:

#87

@stokiesgoneketo
Oh bravo!! What a transformation! Can you add a few more fotos? I love looking at them. The before and after are so uplifting! I am deeply impressed. Did you add fasting in any form to your keto diet?

(Elmo) #88

:sunglasses::raised_hands:

(Ideom) #89

We actually can determine the exact number of calories - it just takes the equipment to measure the energy expenditure. That we can’t do the math in our heads or directly perceive the exact answer via our senses doesn’t mean the answer is unobtainable. Likewise, the fact that for most of our history we couldn’t directly perceive things below a certain size did not mean that they weren’t there. It was only 400-500 years ago that we got the microscope, but that didn’t prevent the prior existence of bacteria, for example.

Cool - we agree that the laws of thermodynamics do not change (and I assume we agree that they apply, here). But you are wrong where you say, “The error of CICO is to ignore the the regulatory functions of hormones and enzymes and the near impossibility to determine precisely caloric intake and output, not thermodynamics.”

CICO does not address hormonal effects, and it does not claim to. In this respect, CICO (less on the “in” than the “out”) is the result of hormonal effects, not the cause of them. Hormones are a substantial driver of what the “calories out” is. CICO isn’t pretending to tell us all the reasons why, CICO is just telling us “Here’s what you have as far as energy balance.” CICO is saying, “Here’s what’s going on, thermodynamically.” It’s up to us to figure out broader considerations if we want to.

I didn’t say illiterate, and I specifically did say that I was not accusing you of being truly “anti-science.” I have seen you be very helpful to many forum members and come up with many good responses to questions, and you’re obviously very interested and willing to do research. Yet on ‘CICO’ you seem determined to go off the rails, i.e. presume that CICO ‘claims’ to tell us more than it does.

We have 1347 very small green balls in one hand, and 1187 in the other. We don’t directly perceive the correct numbers right away. But with time and effort, we can determine those numbers. Yet by your logic you are saying that the accounting is invalid, no matter what.

That’s not really it. I am saying that just because science gets complicated, that just because we can’t do the math in our heads or immediately visually detect the answers, etc., it does not mean that a proper scientific consideration is not possible. It’s not always easy to avoid logical fallacies, to not generalize from the particular, to not insert opinion as objective fact, to properly qualify our statements so they are always true, rather than sometimes true, etc.

As above, just because we don’t immediately know what the count of very small green balls is, nor all the reasons for them being in each hand, that doesn’t mean that an accounting of them is invalid or in error. Similar criticisms of CICO are likewise illogical.

CICO actually tells us quite a lot, directly and by inference we know almost the entirety of energy flow and balance, right there.

This too is wrong. It’s not “absurd” to view things as energy in, energy to storage, energy to usage, and energy to waste. How accurate do things have to be, to satisfy you? Don’t you think we’ve already gotten a very complete accounting, right there? What else do you think is happening? I submit that if you think a substantial amount is missing, then you are dealing with something that is imaginary.

CICO does not claim to define and inform about all the “very important processes” you mention. Again, CICO is a result here, more than a cause. As with the green balls, it’s up to us to pursue the question of why the count is what it is.

It’s a statement of physical properties, that’s really all.

A Calorie is Not A Calorie - A Discussion of Thermodynamics