The 3 variables to weight loss/gain


#21

gitanacv said: Couple of things. I agree studies have proven ketosis is effective in treating diabetes and epilepsy. However, I have read nowhere that HFLC proves it is more effective from a CICO perspective. From a satiety perspective, yes. In the end, one should do what enables them to sustain their goals of weight reduction.

Couple of things. :slight_smile:

You will gain more credibility if you call it the widely accepted LCHF rather than the HFLC you are using.

And yes, one should do what enables them to sustain their goals of weight loss reduction. Most people round here don’t bother with CICO thinking, and it works fine for them.

Me? All CICO achieved for me was a super efficient metabolism that slows down within days of calorie reduction. So I happily reject that simplistic thinking. Glad if it works for you though. Hopefully it will continue to do so.


#22

And kidneys. Don’t forget the kidneys.
Keeping them is rather useful, too. :wink:


#23

Not impossible at all, only SEEMS that way when you’re comparing our bodies to a set of “rules” that we shouldn’t be paying attention to. MANY of us have lost our weight eating way more than we did getting fat. CICO isn’t a failure because calories just don’t matter, they matter, but we have many other things that dictate weight gain/loss and CICO accounts for NONE of them! So for that reason alone shouldn’t be used for anything more than a general guide of what we’re eating. For some people CICO guesses are a pretty descent guess and work for people. But for most people that have weight loss issues calories are just a scale with no reference points on either end. Given the insane amount of obesity in the western world it’s obviously NOT working for the masses.


#24

Sorry, Janie, you’ll have to re-consider everything you’ve learned. Your life experience is in conflict with somebody’s theory so you must be mistaken.:expressionless:


(Todd Gamel) #25

Keep in mind Bill that your daily weight can fluctuate between 2 - 4 pounds in just water weight, so do not be discouraged if you do not lose weight when you are weighing everyday. In fact, you may gain weight one day, and lose all of that same weight and more the next day. This is why I generally recommend that if you want to weight yourself, you should do it once a week, preferably on the same day. But we are all human and like to know exactly how well we are doing each day.

Your weight may stall, but that is not a true indicator of whether you are still losing weight or not. Many, (I cannot say most or all) are actually still making progress during a stall, it is just the type of measurement they are using that fails them. For example, if you are stalled the scale may indicate that you are not losing weight, but if you are active and maintain metabolic ketosis, then your body is most likely making small subtle changes such as lean muscle growth while still losing weight. A key to remember is that lean muscle is more dense than fat so your weight can stay the same, as your clothes and waist line get smaller.

Over time you may notice that the weight on the scale stays the same, but your clothes will become more loose. Your waist line is really a better indication of loss of fat without something like a dexascan, but stepping on the scales is easy. So if you are exercising like you are, and you maintain a state of metabolic ketosis you will grow more lean muscle mass, and continue to lose weight. By doing so your body will need less insulin to combat high blood sugars and the lower the insulin coarsening through your veins the less unused energy you store as fat, so you continue to lose more weight. Good luck, and continued success!


#26

Forgive me, but given the multiple posts you’ve initiated touting CICO as being more important than anything else, I feel like you must have at least some emotional attachment to your theory. As I’ve said in reply to another of your posts, whatever works for you is great, but I still wonder why come to ketogenic forums to repeatedly tell everyone their macros don’t affect their metabolism?


(Bill C) #27

Couldn’t agree more, Todd. The clothes fit more loosely, even though the weight has not changed in a couple of days. As I said, I will report what happens over the next few days since I will record everything. I think I may differ from many who post, in that I am not looking for extreme weight reduction. I am 6’4’. Started this regimen at around 195 and want to get to 172. Not near as much weight loss needed as many here but it is still substantial for someone my size. Having just gotten under 190, I am at the point where, for me, the next 15+lbs will be very significant. And, as I said, I will be VERY curious to see how the continued calorie reduction and exercise will translate. I don’t want to lose muscle mass in my efforts to lose the weight.


(Jane) #28

:rofl:

When I was in my early 20’s I ate about the same number of calories as I do now but maintained 118 instead of 156 lbs.

And CICO worked just fine. I gained a lb or so over the weekend and cut back during the week and the weight came back off.

Something happened when I got pregnant. Hormones I suspect. I put on 90 lbs with the pregnancy and wasn’t eating constantly but definitely more than usual. I figured the weight would “fall off” once I could be actually be again and “just cut back a bit on calories”.

Boy, was I wrong! Suddenly no matter how much I cut back, how much time I spent in the gym the weight came off SLOW and one weekend of just normal eating (not binging) would put it back on.

I did get back in the 130’s on Weight Watchers back in 1990 when they limited the bread (instead of their stupid point system that you can eat all your points in carbs). I was eating 800-1200 cal/day and as soon as I started eating over 1500 cal per day I started gaining it back.

Did not have this problem before the pregnancy. My inability to access my fat stores worsened over the years and my weight climbed eating the same diet.


(TJ Borden) #29

So since you don’t “agree” with what has worked for…well apparently everyone else on this thread; in your methodology, how do you explain a stall, and how do you break it?

It it’s as simple as CICO, then a stall isn’t possible. Clearly you’re just eating too much. Or maybe you just need to exercise more, right?


#30

Yes, and this is the experience of so many people!! I think if we could somehow magically calculate everyone’s metabolic rate at every moment (plus somehow include gut biome and how much we’re absorbing or not… plus all the other million variables in how our bodies process food) then I guess we could start to make CICO an applicable theory, but otherwise it just seems a completely backwards way of figuring things out. And in any case for someone to tell you that your own experience is just wrong… I :exploding_head:… argh!!!

Here’s how I sometimes think of it: whether you’re inclined toward a creator or evolution, I think we can agree that there’s a wisdom to our metabolism that current science can try to explain but can’t begin to fully understand or replicate. CICO always seems not just reductionist to me but also really arrogant, as if a simple mathematical equation can somehow capture the infinite complexity of our biology.


(bulkbiker) #31

This… a million times over.


(Bill C) #32

I think you are missing the point. No one is suggesting CICO is a straight line process, without many variables. What I am saying is that CICO will prevail. It is an accurate measurement OVER TIME. Weight loss for many people is a frustrating process. It takes time to see results. But when people say things like I eat more now and exercise less and yet I am losing more weight is simply factually incorrect. And then when they take it a step further and say they think measuring their caloric intake is waste of time, they can’t possibly know and therefore substantiate their claims. I’m not interested in emotions. I am interested in the data, which I will post but for those of you who wish to emote go elsewhere.


#33

I just ordered this book. Thank you😊


(bulkbiker) #34

Maybe check out Jason Wittrock and Sam Feltham’s high calorie experiments?


#35

Great minds :slight_smile: I was just about to suggest the same thing.

@gitanacv Bill, folks are frustrated with you not because you’re data-driven but because you’re committed to a theory that doesn’t fit their experience.

The experiments that Mark mentions just can’t be explained with CICO. The data is there and it doesn’t support your hypothesis. Here’s the link to one of them. If you’re interested in science, then you have to find a way to explain the discrepancy.

Go ahead; we’ll wait.


(Wendy) #36

Actually over time is when you will probably realize the falacy of cico. I didn’t have much of a weight problem in my youth either. Did you read the book?


(Wendy) #37

Maybe it’s what your reading.


#38

CICO implies the notion that all food calories are created equal so regardless if its candy, ice cream, vegetables, meat, or anything else; as long as the net calories you consume is negative, you will lose weight. The OP obviously agrees it isnt this simple, so why are we still referencing a montra that we dont agree with?

This model ignores one important part though - insulin. Insulin is a storage molecule that acts on your cells to intake and store nutrients. The higher the insulin response, the higher the storage. There are some great studies that even look at energy expenditure during high insulin moments and they found that the available energy to burn by the body is much lower which makes sense. If your body is storing it all, its not as available to be burned.


(Bill C) #39

There are several things that jump out at me right from the start. One, he is not a doctor. Two, in tabulating caloric intake he says he ate 150g of almonds. Since there are 170 calories in 30g on the package of raw almonds I have, that would equate to 850 calories but he lists his intake as 967. That is a 117 calorie discrepancy with just the one item. He then goes on to tell us he weighs 80kg. Just to make this simple for our predominantly American audience, his weight is 176lbs. He then tells us that he has 15% body fat or 26lbs. He then tells us this equates to 108,000 calories. No, 26lbs. of fat equates to 91,000 calories, not 108,000. I could go on but you get the gist.


#40

Ah- yes! since he is not a doctor, he must be misreading his scale. Without a medical degree, we are only allowed to count to ten. And is that why Janie can’t tell that she’s eating more and losing weight? because she’s not a doctor?

A lot of folks who talk calories are actually in disagreement about how many you have to burn to use a pound of body fat, so that explains why he used the 4000+ number. However, I don’t see how that number - how many calories his body fat would theoretically give him - is actually relevant to his results.

Your first example shows part of the absurdity of CICO: look on three packs of almonds and you’ll get three different nutritional breakdowns.

I’m bowing out of this conversation. It’s rare for me to get sarcastic and to get really annoyed by someone on this forum. I don’t mind that we disagree about CICO - if it’s working for you, have at it - but watching you come on here and tell folks that their experience is wrong is driving me nuts. I’m out.