Why are people so hell bent on defending CICO

(Doug) #31

:slightly_smiling_face: No. I think a good bit of the argument stems from people perceiving that insulin resistance, for example, is often not included in the discussion. I agree that it’s not, thusly, and that that is erroneous, and I’m sold on the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis. But that doesn’t mean that “CICO is wrong.” That just means that the “Out” can be changed by one’s insulin level. I’ll state that not only is that true, but also that it can be a profound thing - it certainly was and is for me.

So, high insulin levels can essentially “lock” the body into fat-storage mode, and lock it out of fat-burning mode. Nothing new here from a “keto diet” perspective. And this can greatly affect the “Out.”

Perhaps a less-than-totally recognizant person on Twitter, likely not insulin resistant (or at least not yet) makes an over-simplified and potentially incorrect statement… Okay, but how does that alter the basic physical laws of the universe? :wink: And it’s hardly a rational reason to argue against them.

(:stuck_out_tongue:) We’re talking about In and Out. “Recycled” - hardly at all, i.e. energy extraction is really efficient with the human body (frustratingly so, often, when weight loss is the desire :wink:)

Same for “steady rate” - why would that matter? We’re talking about weight loss or gain or staying the same, over time. Nobody is telling you that energy usage will “always be the same” - obviously, it’s not going to be, what with exercise or not, being awake or not, etc. Come on… :wink:

Speaking of “pulling legs…” :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye::smile:

Thermogenesis does not happen by magic. Do you think that the heat/energy of what you mention appears out of the ‘aether,’ rather than involving what a person puts in their mouth? :wink: :smile_cat:

(Doug) #32

Michael, same old, same old. If you’ve read it, then tell us why CICO is ‘bollocks.’

We really have been here numerous times.

Anyway, here’s the Sex Pistols… :slightly_smiling_face:

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #33

I’ll let Richard Feinman respond:

A review of simple thermodynamic principles shows that weight change on isocaloric diets is not expected to be independent of path (metabolism of macronutrients) and indeed such a general principle would be a violation of the second law. Homeostatic mechanisms are able to insure that, a good deal of the time, weight does not fluctuate much with changes in diet – this might be said to be the true “miraculous metabolic effect” – but it is subject to many exceptions. The idea that this is theoretically required in all cases is mistakenly based on equilibrium, reversible conditions that do not hold for living organisms and an insufficient appreciation of the second law. The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected . Thus, ironically the dictum that a “calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics , as a matter of principle.

(Doug) #34

Dude. :slightly_smiling_face:

It doesn’t all go to storage as fat, anyway, regardless, no matter what… The body has to keep operating, unless death. :smile: And at that point, fat storage/not ain’t gonna be all that important, nor the normally-not-used-for-energy status of protein, as you note.

I certainly agree that there are potentially different destinations for matter entering the body, and that ‘weight’ can be other things than fat. But really, fat is what we’re talking about, overwhelmingly. And anyway - whether stored as fat, or as increased muscle or bone density, the same ‘can’t-get-around-them’ physical laws apply.

(Doug) #35

In no way does that argue against CICO. That just affirms it - changing the metabolism, and ‘homeostatic mechanisms,’ etc., involve changing the “Out.”

Per what you quoted, if the discussion is to change to the possibly variable effect of the different macronutrients, the “different metabolic pathways” that may involve the different macronutrients - and as far as I know, you and I are on the same page, there - then fine, but that’s not going to change CICO.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #36


38%20PM

…Here it is demonstrated, however, that weight stability coexists with a persistent energy imbalance. Such unexpected result emerges as a consequence of the answers to three fundamental problems: 1. Is it possible to model body weight fluctuations without the energy balance theory? And if so, what are the benefits over the energy balance strategy? 2. During energy balance, how the oxidized macronutrient distribution that underlies the average energy expenditure is related to the macronutrient distribution of the average energy intake? 3. Is energy balance possible under a low-fat diet that simultaneously satisfies the following conditions? (a) The fat fraction of the absorbed energy intake is always less than the oxidized fat fraction of the energy expenditure. (b) The carbohydrate fraction of the absorbed energy intake is always greater or equal to the oxidized carbohydrate fraction of the energy expenditure…

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #37


21%20PM

The scientific study of obesity has been dominated throughout the twentieth century by the concept of energy balance… As we review below, this model cannot explain why weight accumulates persistently in individuals, rather than reaching a plateau when weight gain re-establishes the balance between energy intake and expenditure. The energy balance approach also underplays the effect of particular dietary components (for example, carbohydrates, amino-acids and fatty acids) on energy metabolism and fuel oxidation.

#38

Isn’t glucose urinated out instead of converted into fat when someone is insulin resistant and/or diabetic?

The energy used by human cells in an adult requires the hydrolysis of 100 to 150 mol/L of ATP daily, which means a human will typically use their body weight worth of ATP over the course of the day.[27] Each equivalent of ATP is recycled 1000–1500 times during a single day (150 / 0.1 = 1500),[26] at approximately 9×1020 molecules/s.[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate#ATP_recycling

NAD+(Vitamin B3) deficiency leads to impaired ATP recycling.

Since NAD+ levels within the cell can be limiting, both glycolysis in the cytoplasm and the TCA cycle in the mitochondria can influence metabolic homeostasis by altering cytosolic/nuclear NAD+ and NADH levels. In addition, following DNA damage, NAD+ levels can drop low enough that glycolysis and substrate flux to the mitochondria is blocked, leading to cell death, despite having an excess of available glucose. This finding highlights the need to understand the mechanisms interconnecting subcellular NAD+ pools, as their homeostasis and interactions are essential for the preservation of cell viability and ATP levels.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cmet.2015.05.023

Beta oxidation also requires NAD+ to recycle ATP.

Thermogenesis on a low PUFA diet requires many more calories. Burning PUFA’s produces thermogenesis as a by product. Hence less calories are required.

Carbs on the other hand are thermocooling because they need water for their storage and require thermogenesis to keep the water in the cells from freezing during cold days.

I always felt cold on a carbohydrate diet.

(Doug) #39

He’s not arguing against CICO. He’s saying, essentially, that ‘not all calories are the same, at least in some cases.’

He’s talking about the difference that may exist for different ratios of macronutrient intake. He says that mass balance, rather than an assumed equivalence between energy intake and output, is what makes for weight stability.

Well, no kidding - this forum is pretty much predicated on that fact. :slightly_smiling_face:

Calories don’t have to have the exact same effect on the body, no matter what, for CICO to apply.

What he describes is the difference between predicted weight change or stability, based on energy intake, versus observed weight. One of his axioms is that “Body weight stability occurs when, on average, the daily mass input equals daily mass output” - Ha! Imagine that…

He’s saying you can’t necessarily expect a certain weight state - change or no change, based on “Caories In,” alone, and I think we all agree with that.

He doesn’t say that “for multiple subjects, CICO was the same, while different weight results were achieved.” In essence, he says, “A low carb diet made for higher energy expenditure and greater weight loss, versus a low fat diet.” He observed the “Calories Out” changing, which is perfectly in line with CICO.

(Doug) #40

I think so, sometimes - it’s not total, though, and I’d say it’s more of a Type 1 diabetic thing than for Type 2s…?

Sounds like a good thing for those of us who want to lose weight. :+1:

Sure, as far as heating the body, that makes sense. But that doesn’t argue against “CICO.” That’s just referring to the body having different fuel sources for the heat production.

Energy, especially on a more transient level, does not have to directly and linearly equate to weight. A person gets into a tub of hot water, or they get into a tub of cold water. Their energy state changes while their mass/weight does not.

And CICO is just fine with that. Joe Blow got into the tub of hot water. He had some ‘calories in’ right then, and later on old Joe will radiate them back out into the environment.

(Michael) #41

Glucose is urinated out if the level goes above about 10 mmol/L. So it is not necessarily related to metabolic status (although how else would it get that high), but more the current level in the blood.

(Doug) #42

This is the same as Arencibia-Albite’s stuff. It does not argue against CICO, it just points out that you cannot necessarily get an accurate, overall picture by looking at “Calories In,” alone.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #43

I’m beginning to suspect that this discussion always results from a fundamental confusion between the notion that all calories are fungible, which is denoted by the shorthand “CICO” or “eat less, move more,” and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. To say that the former is nonsense is not to reject the latter.

Coca-cola uses the notion that calories are fungible to persuade us that their product is okay to include in our diet. As long as we don’t ingest too many calories, they could all come from Coca-Cola, and we will be fine. This is indeed nonsense. As Feinman and many others point out, calories are clearly not all the same, which means that CICO is nonsense. No one is rejecting the laws of thermodynamics here, only saying that in reality they apply much differently from the way they are said to apply when people trot out CICO and “eat less, move more.” As Gary Taubes likes to point out, of course when we shed excess fat it means we took in less energy than we expended, but the real questions of interest are why did that happen, and how did that happen. The thinking denoted “CICO” or “eat less, move more” tells us nothing to answer those questions.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #44

@OldDoug You seem to have your own idiosyncratic definition of CICO. Any mention of ‘calorie’ or ‘energy’ confirms CICO.

In the world where I live, a primary, essential element of CICO - the common dietary regimen - is any calorie from any source is exactly the same as any other calorie from any other source and those identical calories will have exactly the same effect on metabolic activity. Thus, you can simply add and subtract the gross caloric in/out to calculate changes in fat storage.

Starting with the article by Feinman and Fine, this primary, essential element of CICO - the common dietary regimen - is shown to be just flat wrong. This forum is full of folks who went through CICO - the common dietary regimen - some of them multiple times, damaging their metabolisms in the process. I’ve been reading their stories for 3+ years! I don’t know how you can continue to claim that CICO - the common dietary regimen - is valid while standing amid the wreckage all around you.

I had my say. If you remain convinced of the validity of CICO, so be it.

#45

It was a rhetorical question to @OldDoug ’ s previous comment to make a point.

10 mmol/L above what level?

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #46

It’s a reference to the absolute concentration of serum glucose; in other words, 10 mmol/L above 0.

As @Naghite states, the fact of insulin resistance alone is not enough to cause the excretion of glucose, it requires a sufficient amount in the bloodstream to “spill over” into the urine. This is one of the body’s safety mechanisms, since hyperglycaemia is both dangerous and damaging.

The word “diabetes” is supposedly derived from an ancient Egyptian word meaning “syphon,” since it appears that sugar is being syphoned out of the body in the urine. This, of course, was observed in the context of Type I diabetes, which is an auto-immune disease that has been with us since ancient times. Type II diabetes, on the other hand, is a metabolic problem that was vanishingly rare until inexpensive refined sugar hit the market in the middle of the 19th century. (Elliott Joslin observed the beginnings of the diabetes epidemic at Massachusetts General in the 1880’s.)

Although both diseases have the issue of glucose control in common, they are very different. Type I is cause by damage to the pancreas and is typified by an inability to secrete insulin right from the beginning. The lack of insulin causes glucagon to elevate serum glucose to dangerous levels, at which point glucose starts to be excreted and the patient essentially starves to death. Insulin treatment stops both the wasting and the excretion of glucose.

In Type II, the problem is one of insulin resistance and the secretion of too much insulin, so glucose remains in check until the later stages of the disease. Glucose in the urine is not typical of Type II until the very late stages of the untreated disease, when the pancreas finally stops producing insulin. If the disease is properly treated, glucose remains controlled and is not excreted in urine.

(BuckRimfire) #47

This is a good point. To elaborate: “bone density” isn’t even the only important thing. Bone is not just a big crystal of calcium phosphate. Healthy bone has cells constantly moving through it and adding collagen to the matrix. Bone without calcium would lack compressive strength, but calcium crystals lack tensile strength and flexibility, so bone without collagen would be like concrete without rebar: weak and brittle.

I saw a study some months ago that showed that in old people, fractures didn’t correlate very reliably with bone calcium density. IIRC, they specifically said loss of bone protein was to blame.

Wasn’t there also a study recently that found vegan kids are more prone to fractures?

edit: I realize this is off-topic, but no one ever said I was a good citizen!

(Doug) #48

That’s not true, though, Paul. Different macronutrients, as with carbohydrates and others (as mentioned many a time on this forum) can change the disposition of energy and the weight of a person.

Feinman, etc., have noted this, certainly. And so we have different states of CICO, not any indictment of CICO. Let’s say the first case is eating 2000 calories of carbs, and the second case is eating 2000 calories of fat and protein, and that in the second case it results in more of the “Out” via a higher metabolism. Over time, many people in the second case will display more weight loss than people in the first case. Okay, great.

The argument is not that “calories are (entirely) fungible.” Especially on such a forum as this. :smile:

(Doug) #49

I think it’s true for vegans in general.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #50

Isn’t that precisely the point? And it is a direct refutation of what I understand “CICO,” “a calorie is a calorie,” and “eat less, move more” to mean. It appears that your definition of CICO, etc., is precisely what Feinman is asserting in opposition to his understanding of what it means. So we have here a matter of terminology being used imprecisely, not a disagreement on the actual reality.

That is why these forums exist, no? But the mainstream view is precisely as I stated it. There are considerable economic forces that have a vested interest in its being so. Just ask Walter Willet and his friends in the sugar industry.