That’s two different things. Agreed that human life/metabolism/cellular processes, etc., is incredibly complex. But the process is different from the result. And the result is the 'Out," and that’s really pretty simple. How we get there isn’t what CICO describes.
I have to disagree again, Michael. Whatever happens along the way, the In & Out are there. In a given case, it’s because of thermodynamics and all the body’s cellular processes that the CICO quantities are what they are.
Here too - think about it. If done enough, that will result in weight loss, period. “Eat less, move more,” is different than CICO, though - the former is a prescription for supposed weight loss. CICO will be going along with whatever happens, loss or not.
That’s still mixing up different things. Yeah, I’m with you on carbs and insulin. But in no way does CICO “ignore” that. CICO will reflect that. And when it comes to weight loss, yes, the In has to be less than the Out. CICO does not depend on any certain mix of macronutrients. CICO is not saying that “all calories are the same.” It doesn’t have to say anything of the sort. Regardless of what one eats, as long as the In is less than the Out, then down goes the weight. And the same for vice-versa weight gain.
The different things I see: CICO - is just what it says,
“All calories are the same.” Of course that is not true, and CICO doesn’t pronounce on things, there.
“Eat less, move more.” If done enough, then foolproof, but that’s not practical or tolerable for all people. The aim of it, however - weight loss - does go right back to CICO and the undeniable physical truth there.
amwassil
(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.)
#96
I’m focused on what I consider the important thing - what is lost or gained.
The CICO equation is: Tot = CI - CO
If ‘Tot’ is negative you lose weight, if positive you gain weight. That’s all CICO says. That’s the energy balance. As you have reiterated several times, as far as it goes that’s correct. We’re agreed.
I’m arguing that’s only part and not the most important part of what actually happens in the real world. I think it more significant whether the ‘weight loss or gain’ is fat mass or lean mass. The CICO equation and simple energy balance say nothing about that. Energy Balance™; doesn’t care whether you’re dead or alive, healthy or not.
Folks who want to lose, want to lose fat - not muscle mass or bone density. Folks who want to gain, want to gain muscle mass and bone density not fat. As @Halliepoints out above CICO is only part of the answer. (It would be nice, Hallie, to post a link! Thanks.) Sure, you have to maintain an energy deficit to burn it and a surplus to store it. However, whether you lose/gain fat mass instead of muscle and/or bone density - the CICO equation tells you nothing. It all depends on exactly what the energy input is and how it is processed to output. You know that, Doug, and claim that CICO says so. I don’t think CICO the diet/ideology says so. If you can cite something, prove me wrong.
I lost 70 lbs fast and I actually did ‘force some exercise’ to ‘help me’ on my CICO plan.
Not sustainable long term tho. Key to it all, sustainability long term! CICO can’t do that for many at all cause if damn near the regain failure rate is like 90 something % then, it shows it isn’t a long term sustainable plan.
Hunger and being non-nourished are forces a physical body can’t handle long at all…and then throw in the mind games of ‘dieting’ and you can’t win at all…ugh…
People keep arguing the science of CICO while completely ignoring that standard dietician advice of CICO does not work for losing weight AND keeping it off. And that’s the point, not proving the theory.
Actually, it does. That’s the notion behind “calories in, calories out,” “eat less, move more,” and “a calorie is a calorie”: that all calories are the same. You may not agree with that notion, but the vast majority of companies and nutrition experts who use those terms are using them for the express purpose of asserting that all calories are in fact the same.
For example, Coca-Cola uses CICO to say that the calories from their product are the same as the calories from other foods (stipulating for the sake of argument that Coca-Cola can even be considered a food), and all that matters is not to consume too many calories, regardless of their source, and we’ll be fine.
Researchers in the pay of the sugar industry—which, by the way, donated the money that established the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health—have argued that sugar is a perfectly fine food, even if it contains no nutritional benefit but calories—we just have to avoid eating too many calories. So “calories in, calories out” actually does mean that all that counts is the amount of calories you are eating and expending.
So you may very well not use “CICO,” “eat less, move more,” and “a calorie is a calorie” to mean that all calories are the same, but many, if not most, people do, and that is the idea that people on these forums are arguing against when they say CICO is bogus. The fact that you use “CICO” in a more nuanced fashion is irrelevant, because we are not arguing against that nuanced view.
In fact, we all—you, I, David Ludwig, Robert Lustig, and Richard Feinman—happen to agree on that nuanced view. We are all dedicated to demolishing the notion that all calories are the same. Even you agree with the rest of us that they are not.
So let’s agree that we are all actually acknowledging the same reality and just arguing over definitions. When I argue against CICO, I’m arguing from the same point of view that you are arguing from and objecting to a particular way that term is used by many, many people, a use of the term that I recognise you yourself do not use. I am arguing against other people who use the term in a way you do not; I am not arguing against you.
I hope that all this makes things a bit clearer.
amwassil
(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.)
#100
A calorie is a calorie is a calorie
Despite protestations to the contrary, I don’t think there’s any doubt that CICO the diet/ideology proclaims that calories in/out is all that really matters and anything else merely roadside events.
The CHO-insulin hypothesis predicted that lowering dietary CHO significantly should cause insulin levels to fall, leading to release of fat from adipocytes that would 1 ) increase fat loss and 2 ) increase EE to claimed amounts in the range of ≥350 cal/day (range 400–600). Neither of these effects was observed in two current and highly rigorous metabolic ward studies, one of which was the actual NuSI study being discussed.
Weight gain or loss is not primarily determined by varying proportions of CHO and fat in the diet, but instead by the number of calories ingested.
That says it about as succinctly as it can be said.
A bunch of soda producers got together and started a campaign to place these stickers where they sell sugar-laden drinks. They want to keep CICO alive because it let’s them off the hook. People are just taking in too much, it isn’t the toxic nature of their product.
Okay, Michael, but we’re really talking about losing fat here, right?
Yeah, and that makes such intuitive sense that I truly wonder at all the debate about it.
Agreed - if we’re speaking as the Energy Balance or CICO, then we’re just saying what reality is, without further specification. In practice, fat loss is (almost) always what’s desired, and there is the separate matter of how much lean tissue one loses and its composition, i.e. skin, muscle, etc. There’s still no indictment of CICO there.
In the real world, yeah - fat loss is what’s wanted, to generalize. No debate that CICO is only part of the answer; but in no way does that impugn it. For some of us, there are other things to think about, no question - and that’s not the debate.
Nobody is claiming that CICO forecasts the ratios of bone loss, muscle loss, fat loss, etc. Of course it doesn’t - there is not nearly enough information to address that. I have never claimed that CICO tells us more than it does. What I see are people pretending that it does, however.
Fangs, you found a way to make CICO work for you, longer-term. I take it for granted that keto eating often enables people with problems in accessing their stored fat to improve the situation.
That’s not due to any fault of CICO, but rather people not keeping the ‘In’ less than the ‘Out.’ No argument that that is what happens a huge amount of time, for people with insulin resistance who are still eating a carb-heavy diet, i.e. keto will often help matters, there.
Paul, at the best, that is generalizing from the particular. Most people in the world aren’t ‘fat’ and the makeup of their calories really doesn’t change their weight. Now of course for some of us, the carbs versus fat/protein does make a difference. But if we are generalizing, then even the illogical extention of CICO to “a calorie is a calorie” will be more true than false.
What a marketer says doesn’t change reality. However, a person would still lose weight, even on a “nothing but Coke diet,” as long as they kept with the CICO dictum.
And as stated, regardless of other concerns which are not addressed there, that is true. CI < CO = weight loss, if we’re generalizing.
Hold on a second - again, “eat less, move more” will work, if done enough. And for most of the world, the bumper-sticker take of “a calorie is a calorie” holds true.
I certainly agree that for some people, what the “calories in” are makes a very meaningful difference. But in no way does that make generalized pronouncements like “CICO is bollocks” true. CICO, per se, is always true. And even the physically false extention of it to “all calories are the same” doesn’t alter the reality that weight loss will come from the ‘In’ being less than the ‘Out.’
For a relatively small slice of the pie, I do think we’re acknowledging the same reality, i.e. that for some people what the calories ‘In’ are is massively important. But that doesn’t mean that unqualified statements about CICO being wrong are valid.
I don’t think we’re really arguing over definitions. I think we’re just considering things in different ways. It’s quite a leap from ‘CICO’ to “all calories are the same.” And granted - this is a keto forum - but even if we just talk about people for whom the type of calories really, really does matter, then the as-stated things like “eat less, move more” will work, if done enough. Eating less would not necessarily be required for weight loss, if the ‘Out’ increases. So for some people just “moving more” is enough. Likewise, for some people just eating ketogenically is enough.
So I see a twisty-turny course that makes some leaps, and that neglects some truisms, and the endpoint is that “CICO is wrong?” And even beyond that - as a practical matter, why keto often works for weight loss, where other procedures did not, is because the person’s CICO state is then configured correctly.
amwassil
(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.)
#108
Let’s start here with an overview:
Then the discussions.
PS: CICO includes a diet that consists entirely of Diet Coke. Since calories in of Diet Coke are zero and caloreis out will be whatever your REE happens to be, I think we can guarantee you will be in a caloric deficit and lose weight. So @OldDoug is right. CICO is physics and works.
Indeed, there are times. As frequently with ketogenic eating when insulin resistance is a problem, which enables people to finally get the ‘Out’ above the ‘In.’
amwassil
(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.)
#110
Doug, you keep talking about the physics of CICO. I have no argument with the physics. It’s with the dietary regimen and ideology of CICO that I take issue. It follows the physics only so far as to justify its application. It ignores the physics that says anything other than energy in minus energy out. It ignores all the physics that result in energy transformations. For human health and well-being, the energy transformations are just as significant as the gross energy in/out - and in the long run probably moreso. In my humble opinion.
Well, Michael, even if we extend it to “eat less, move more,” that works for most people, i.e. most people have enough balance that weight loss isn’t a real concern or big desire. If we want to generalize then even all the “as stated” things that don’t logically follow from ‘CICO’ are more true than they’re false.
‘The ideology of CICO’ - who can really argue with keeping the Out higher than the In, for weight loss?
“Justify its application” - hey, even with keto, CICO is at work, weight loss resulting from the ‘Out’ being larger.
In no way does CICO ignore “the physics that result in energy transformations.” CICO is the statement of that very thing. This is as true for ketogenic eating as for any other type of eating.
amwassil
(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.)
#112
Do you really think that eating 150 grams of carbs is no different from eating 150 grams of fat - taking into account the difference in energy content? Do you really think that the energy transformations are identical? If you do so, I am really surprised because I think you know they are not. This is what CICO ignores.
I didn’t say it was the “fault” of CICO. I know when my appetite dropped I was eating fewer calories than I needed and lost weight. By reducing my carbs I lowered my insulin response and I accessed my fat stores. Without the second case my metabolism would have dropped to match my input.
But CICO the way it is promoted by dietitians who dislike keto is CRAP and only gives short-term results then fail. And the dieter gets blamed “for not following the diet”.
For the multitudes of us who have been BLAMED for decades for failing the CICO diet advice, this subject rubs us raw. Keto would have been so simple and saved me decades of embarrassment for being overweight and believing it was my fault.
This is not about CICO not valid. It is. This is about the ignorance of dietitians and their misunderstanding of how the body stores and burns fat.
The whole ethos behind CICO does indeed pronounce on the multiple influences I mention as the impact of 2000 cals of doughnuts should be exactly the same as 2000 cals of steak.
As both you and I know that isn’t the case then you must agree that CICO is untrue.
“Calories” are a measure of a unit of energy and have damn all to do with what we eat.
Fangs, you found a way to make CICO work for you, longer-term. I take it for granted that keto eating often enables people with problems in accessing their stored fat to improve the situation.