Stokies and CICO die/blow hards


#21

You have done an amazing job!

There’s nothing you can say to idiots like that–I just try not to feed the Trolls :wink: and let him crawl back under the rock he came from.

Keep on keeping on!


(BuckRimfire) #22

Sorry for what??? This awesome!!!

Go forth and kick ass some more! (To be read as encouragement, not some dude telling you what to do :wink:)


(Shelly C) #23

OMG… I see the same reaction with most of the women who “knew me before” and see me now. I have lost 70# - from 195 to 125. They want to know because they ask, but I really don’t believe they actually believe me! There are 2, however, who have claimed on multiple occasions how they would like my help, both offering to pay me which I declined payment. But, when I explain how important it is to stick to the WOE to be successful - to not have cheat days, I don’t hear from either of them for weeks and sometimes months. Until, of course, they are frustrated by how they look and feel, then they reach out again. To be honest, i don’t mind helping someone but I am far to busy to have my chain yanked over and over.
If success is really desired, this lifestyle takes a huge initial commitment. Initial is subjective, of course, for each individual. My personal experience of “initial” was about a year - for some it may be less, more for others - to change my eating lifestyle. But, heck, I had been eating within my previous habits for 50+ years, so I really don’t consider a year too long. Now, it comes second nature for me - I know the value of foods and I eat what I know will keep me in ketosis. End of story. I just wish I would have known about this a long time ago so I wouldn’t have put my body through years and years of yo-yo weight gain and loss. But the positive side of it is that the next 50 years will be done right!
Press on keto soldiers!! :wink:


(Ellenor Bjornsdottir (spare me thy resistant starch spiel)) #24

people are oppressor explaining how to fill your petrol tank now? I think we’ve hit peak male


(Elmo) #25

It doesn’t wrap around, it just can go either way. If you lost weight because you weren’t hungry anymore, that makes sense. If you ate more and gained weight, that too makes sense. It’s two different things.

If the computer can keep track of the energy and matter, then no problem. Certainly, there’s no “disproving” CICO. People can’t make an end run around the physical laws of the universe.

It doesn’t ignore that stuff. You are describing “calories out,” and that’s necessarily a part of it (of course). If our aim is to lose weight by losing fat, and keeping our insulin low allows us to burn our own stored fat, versus having it be inaccessible due to high insulin, then “lower insulin” will be part of “why the weight was lost,” but that’s no part of any “disproving of CICO.” That’s just calories coming from stored fat.

Solely? :cowboy_hat_face: When somebody fasts and loses weight, then to say it’s because they lowered their calories is true, yeah. But I’m not sure of what you mean by “solely.” Fasting, per se, does equate to weight loss. I put that “per se” in there because some might say, for example, “what about higher water retention that can mean no weight loss while fasting?” In the end, fast long enough and it does mean weight loss.

Your relative perceived hunger isn’t going to change that. CICO is just what happens; it’s not a gauge of how you feel. If you were hungrier in some situations and ate more, that’s no strike against CICO, it’s just you eating more.

Can we not agree that by definition, fasting means eating less and fewer calories?

It seems to me that criticisms of CICO come down to people willfully ignoring the “calories out” section.

It’s the same mistake as somebody saying, “The end-all of weight loss is calorie restriction.” In both cases, they are forgetting about the “out” part.


#26

I mostly agree with what you say but there is this part:

The fasting itself is eating no calories but IF doesn’t mean we eat fewer calories per day at all. It has a big chance but it’s not a given. Sometimes it’s the opposite. I met someone (online so I can’t be sure he told the truth) who seriously overate on OMAD and needed another IF method to eat properly.
Waiting way too long may result in extreme hunger and overeating in some cases.
But normally it’s less and even the simplest CICO may work (it does in many cases and probably not in many others). The complex CICO is always true, I think at least we two agree about that :slight_smile: But it’s very odd to me when someone thinks it’s not true anyway. It’s about energy in the end, there is no other way. We just shouldn’t use the simplistic CICO in every situation as that won’t always work. But it does for many people.


(Doug) #27

Hey everybody - I know CICO is in the title here, but there are many other threads about it. Here’s a couple relatively recent ones:

Nobody’s gotten too mean or personal about things, but is this like “resistant starch”? :stuck_out_tongue:


(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #28

Yes, indeed it is. Folks get hung up on the First Law of Thermodynamics and think CICO demonstrates it. Superficially, it does. But Fung and other researchers constantly point out, and personal experiences of many folks here confirm, that insulin and glucagon, do things that aren’t covered by CICO. Insulin resistance of varying degrees determines what happens to calories in as much as the First Law of Thermodynamics. Probably more.


(Bacon for the Win) #29

the gist of the thread was more about being mansplained than CICO imo. At least that’s how I took it. Then it took a CICO turn as is want to do ‘round these parts.


(Carolyn aka stokies) #30

Yeah, as the OP, being told I didn’t know how I lost my weight kinda just pushed my buttons…


(Doug) #31

At the very least, a large styrofoam baseball bat should have materialized, and rapidly beat that guy in the head. :stuck_out_tongue:


(Sara) #32

I hope you heat up your bacon in a break room at work :rofl:


(Rebecca ) #33

:rofl: One day I was admiring the asparagus (I work at a health food store) I said “Boy this would be delicious wrapped in bacon!” A co-worker looked at me in horror and said “Ew, You eat bacon??” I don’t even attempt to explain…


(Elmo) #34

While (of course) anything is possible, most of the time IF does mean eating fewer calories per day. But even there, we’re not talking about fasting, we’re talking about people eating. Can somebody overeat while just eating one meal per day? :smile: Yes, I reckon so.

If by “the simplest CICO” you mean just reducing calories, then I would say that is necessarily wrong, to start with. It is not just “calories in.” I certainly agree that ‘the complex CICO’ is always true - how can it not be? But it’s crazy to want to throw out the science just because it’s a wee bit more complex than some people think at first glance.

You are right - it is about energy in the end, and there is no other way. :+1:


(Ellenor Bjornsdottir (spare me thy resistant starch spiel)) #35

minor grammatical nitpick: wont, not want.


(Hyperbole- best thing in the universe!) #36

I’m not usually a fan of minor grammatical nitpicks, but that one was interesting. Sometimes a shift in wording is really bad, like “I could care less,” which means the opposite of “I couldn’t care less.”

But wont and want actually both work, at least for me. Wont, meaning accustom or habituate. So either one desires to turn conversations toward CICO, or one is accustomed to do so. So maybe wont is better. Old unhealthy patterns we fall into in spite of ourselves. But maybe those who argue would say it is a want.

Hm hm hmmm…


(Polly) #37

Perhaps the missing element in the CICO debate is that the numerical value of the Calories consumed is less important than the nutritional value of the food consumed.

When Calorie counting people lean towards getting the biggest bang for their buck, which generally means low fat high carb.

When following a keto diet, we go for high nutrient value, feel sated and the consumption of fewer Calories (if it happens) is a coincidental side effect not an aim in itself.

I think that is where the problems arise.


(Ideom) #38

:confused: That sounds like the worst of all worlds.


(Polly) #39

Yes. The thing that made many of us fat in the first place!


(Bacon for the Win) #40

here’s some unsolicited advice: when you feel the need to do some “minor grammatical nitpick” don’t. It’s just that simple.