Why are people so hell bent on defending CICO

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #69

Let me reiterate, Doug. I’m not arguing about total energy in and out. I’m arguing about accounting for what happens between the ‘in’ and the ‘out’. And I think that’s where CICO the dietary regimen fails and people wreck their metabolisms doing it.

CICO claims that all energy ‘in’ is 100% equivalent. The macro nutrient source doesn’t matter, the energy unit is the same and will be utilized without regard for source. We both know that’s false. The Fineman/Fine article I linked above shows exactly why and how it’s false and links to studies demonstrating its falseness.

However, given that input energy equivalence and interchangeable processing is the basic premise of CICO, how does a CICO advocate account for the differences in outcomes of the Jamanetwork study I linked directly above? If a calorie is a calorie and its source irrelevant, on isocaloric diets how could eating more fat and less carbs result in more fat loss than eating more carbs and less fat? Did the subjects on the low carb version of the study cheat by sneaking out to the gym more often?

(Alec) #70

Wow, are we doing this again??? :joy::joy::joy::scream::man_facepalming:

#71

If you’ve found something else that works for you, and it seems to be the case, fantastic! I can understand your enthusiasm.

I was curious by your post and took another look at the world map of obesity. Just looking at this map, you can conclude that for every person who keeps a “normal” weight by sticking to a ketogenic WOE, there are hundreds of million who have actually lived decades with a “normal” weight eating mostly carbs. CICO. They don’t eat enough to become obese. They walk, they cycle, they can’t afford too much food… look at cars per capital in those countries.

In times of war, people lost weight eating almost exclusively carbs. They weren’t eating enough of it to get fat. CICO.

I think keto is a good thing, until it isn’t. And the end of the good thing is the same plague that made CICO seem to stop working: processed foods.

Keto, or CICO, or whatever, it is good if you’re eating real food, food you need to prepare yourself. Then comes all the processed stuff, like chips and sweets and bread you buy ready and cheap for carb eaters, and keto bars, proteins you eat from jars and all the processed keto this and that stuff you have in the USA… and it’ll stop working, too.

People ruin a good thing. Same modus operandi: let’s make it taste like candy, let’s make it easily available. Let’s make money out of it. Let’s make it cheaper.

Anyway, CICO, or anything else, nothing works for everybody. Read this forum and you’ll see people who aren’t losing weight on keto. People who struggle, no matter what they try. We have a huge environmental problem. One person alone can’t win.

Obesity is a problem of too much food made to taste too good, too cheap, too advertised. And of people blaming each other, instead of uniting against the real problem.

The too much food made to taste too good and easily available problem is the CICO downfall and it’s the keto downfall in the making. Wait and see.

Keto community: don’t let it happen. Don’t buy keto processed s**t some try to sell as food. Things sold in plastic wrappings don’t belong in your body. No matter how low in carbs.

Things you can only buy on the internet or at big supermarkets don’t belong in your body, no matter how many carbs they have.

(Doug) #72

Hey Alec. :slightly_smiling_face: It had been a while… :stuck_out_tongue::wink:

Ther difference I see is the presumption that “CICO” means weight will remain stable, or be lost. It’s just a statement of relationship, however, i.e. “There’s this, and then there’s this.” Any consequence, at that point, isn’t defined.

It’s not saying that anything is going to happen, necessarily. Weight can be gained, for that matter.

With more information it can become an ‘If-Then’ statement and away we go…

The changes in obesity are so fast - it used to just be a few percent of adults, worldwide, and now it’s 1 in 7 or 8, and for ‘oveweight’ it’s ~2 in 5.

Processed foods - I wonder how much more of a thing they are now, versus 1990, say. Three decades ago, it was still very much ‘modern times,’ but in the U.S. the biggest change I see is with childhood obesity, which has been drastically increasing.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #73

This may surprise you. It’s not just obesity. What matters is what happens between the ‘in’ and the ‘out’.

37%20AM

According to the most recent data from the International Diabetes Federation, about 8.8% of the world lives with diabetes as of 2019, about a 2.4% increase from 2010 (6.4%). This means that about 415 million people around the world are living with diabetes. This is expected to increase to 642 million by 2040.

Countries with the highest diabetes prevalence:

  1. Marshall Islands (30.5%)
  2. Kiribati (22.5%)
  3. Tuvalu (22.1%)
  4. Sudan (22.1%)
  5. Mauritius (22.0%)
  6. New Caledonia (21.8%)
  7. Pakistan (19.9%)
  8. French Polynesia (19.5%)
  9. Solomon Islands (19.0%)
  10. Guam (18.7%)

:point_right: The full list of every country of the world and by regions.

Unsurprisingly, the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, and Tuvalu are all among the ten most obese countries in the world. Being overweight or obese are risk factors for type 2 diabetes. A majority of these countries are located in the Western Pacific. This is because of poor dietary choices and a lack of physical activity.

The Marshall Islands has a diabetes rate of 30.5%, the highest in the world. The obesity rate is the fourth-highest in the world of 52.9%. The majority of those diagnosed with diabetes in the Marshall Islands have type two. Inhabitants have become increasingly dependent on imported, processed foods that are high in sugar since local foods and imported fruits and vegetables tend to be the most expensive.

Kiribati has the second-highest diabetes rate in the world of 22.5%. Kiribati is the ninth-most obese country in the world with an obesity rate of 46.0%.

Tuvalu, the country with the third-highest rate of diabetes in the world of 22.1%, has an obesity rate of 51.6%. This is the fifth-highest obesity rate in the world. Sudan is tied with Tuvalu with a diabetes prevalence of 22.1% but with a much lower obesity rate of 8.6%.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #74

I agree with @PaulL that CICO became the initial paradigm simply because when the calorimeter was invented 150 years ago heat in and out were the only measurable things. When that was applied to human metabolism is where matters went wrong. The mistake was thinking that a simple measure can explain the workings of a complex system. The energy in/out is only the description the overall state and ignores all the more important reactions/processes that are initiated/completed within. As I like to phrase it, what really matters for human metabolism is what happens between the ‘in’ and the ‘out’.

The universe is a thermodynamic system with zero in and zero out. So it must not be a very interesting place. :sunglasses:

(Jennibc) #75

That’s not true. I am an obsessive tracker - I weighed and wrote down everything I ate. That is HOW I can make that statement. I couldn’t lose eating 1500 calories a day! When I increased my fat consumption but made sure to cut out the seed oils I was then eating between 1700 and 1900 a day and LOSING weight. It was slowly, but it was 1.5 to 2 pounds a week. Then I plateaued for abut a year and took out all added sugar and months after that started time restricted eating and within a year and half lost the remaining 53 pounds. I have kept it off for two years - all 120 pounds. I still weigh and track my food daily. I credit that with keeping the weight off. I always eat at least 1600 calories (or I don’t sleep well) and usually take in less than 2000.

#76

I truly believe that there are many reasons for weight loss and gain. “Lifestyle modification including diet and exercise may help reverse obesity and improve chronic disease biomarkers but are largely ineffective in achieving sustainable weight loss and glycemic control.” Journal of Biochemical Pharmacology. Jan 2019. The study goes further in that we can create short-term results, but long-term results won’t be sustained by most people. The number one predictor of long-term weight gain is fat loss.

#77

What I just read is you unintentionally reverse dieted and lost weight, that’s also how I got my RMR back up, it doesn’t disprove anything though, we know that’s how our metabolism work. Keep eating too little and it slows down, give it a kick in the ass and up it and it also responds.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #78

So lifestyle modification and exercise reverse obesity, etc., without weight loss. Interesting!

So the 80 or so pounds I lost four years ago and never regained and my lower serum glucose mean that my weight loss is unsustainable and my lower glucose is an illlusion?

#79

also CICO is a moneymaker

many rely on it to sell a ton of products. CICO is a multi-billion dollar biz out there, no one wants it to go away.

(GINA ) #80

Society hangs onto CICO because it appropriately punishes fat people for the sin of being fat. They can’t be allowed to join the ranks of the superior thin without atonement.

Trading oatmeal for eggs for breakfast, pasta for steak for dinner and maybe walking around the block if you feel like it will work to help the average Joe lose weight and get healthier, but it doesn’t cause enough suffering.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #81

Like the old adage about medicines: you know it’s good for you, because it tastes terrible!

(Doug) #82

The overall system isn’t really complicated, though, from the standpoint of physics. There’s intake, and then storage, metabolism and excretion. Everything that occurs after the “In” is reflected in storage and "Out.

There are calorimeters now that people can live in, and everything is measured, respiration and all. There’s no “magic” at work, and calories in, calories out is there all along.

That’s not the argument, though. Calories in, calories out - the ‘out’ is the result of whatever ‘complexity’ is there; no reason to complain about it.

There are some illogical leaps at work, as well as generalizations from the particular - this is what has bugged me all along.

For most of the world, there’s no issue to begin with, and whether they say “eat less, move more” or not, it’s working for them.

As with the tweet from the original post, that does not mean that it is as simple as that, for everybody, as a practical matter.

Why, in practice, is it not as simple as “eat less, exercise more”? Because, while that’s obviously true as stated, not all people who want to lose weight can keep to that. So that tweet generalizes from the particular, and is not recognizant of what is true for all.

‘CICO’ doesn’t draw distinctions between the macronutrients, but it also does not rule them out. Whatever one eats, it applies. If eating fat versus carbs, for example, affects the ‘out’ (which does appear to be demonstrably true for some people), it’s nothing against CICO. “CICO” in no way says that the quantities are fixed. It only says, in effect, “Here is what you have…”

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #83

Except that it never worked for me. Eating a well-formulated ketogenic diet to satiety and not moving was how I lost my fat.

All stinting on calories or trying to exercise more did for me was to increase my hunger, and I was already eating to the bursting point without satiety.

(Doug) #84

Well sure, Paul. “Most of the world,” there, did not include you. I’m in the same boat as you, and even with all the other hundreds of millions of people (maybe even a billion?) like us, we’re still a minority. But that doesn’t change anything in this discussion. The tweet from the first post here was not correct about it being “as simple as” that, without qualification. But that does not mean that the ‘formula’ for weight loss, i.e. ‘eat less, move more,’ is incorrect. Obviously, it’s true as stated. The fact that it’s not as simple as that reflects that not everybody can stay with that program.

Okay, great. But that’s no argument against CICO.

So in the end you found a way to make the “In” less than the “Out.”

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #85

It is for me. Eating less and moving more never caused me to lose so much as a pound of fat. If it had, I wouldn’t be here. Remember the distinction I made above, between CICO as an ideology, and the facts of physics, and bear in mind Taubes’s point about the Second Law saying nothing about direction of causality.

The fact that Bill Gates got rich because he took in more money than he spent tells us all we need to know, right?

(Butter Withaspoon) #86

Bugger the physics! The experience of low carb doctors in Australia is going from a depressing workplace where patients get sicker and nothing seems to help, to ditching the language and instructions of CICO, giving patients food types guidance with no counting and Viola! Happy doctors no longer about to quit because now their patients are getting better and reducing their medications!!! and feeling good!
It’s a revelation based on deliberately throwing away the calorie balance idea. “You can’t unsee it” is what these doctors say.

Of course in a metabolic chamber you could tally everything up to prove that physics works, but this DOES NOT HELP WITH THE ADVICE to help patients, and I can’t stress this enough (although I tried :joy:)

Anyway, I’m off to give directions to a friend to reach our farm out on the highway. I’ll tell her to fill up the car in central canberry then drive on the highway to Cooma until exactly 5.678 litres of petrol is used. You’ll see the farm gate on your left at exactly that point. Larger model of car use 6.49 litres. No problems with that is there? If you stop for a toilet break, or to dodge a kangaroo or get stuck behind a slow tractor it will still work because physics works. Just take it into account.

If you miss the farm it’s because you didn’t try hard enough or you made one of The Top 10 Weight Loss Mistakes that every trad dietician craps on about ugh!!
I mean, top 10 car fuel calculation mistakes!

(Doug) #87

The 2nd Law doesn’t argue against CICO. So we’re agreed on the physics of what’s going on, but how about ‘CICO’ itself? It does not say that all calories are the same. It doesn’t say anything about that. It just says, “Hey - here’s what you have.” If it’s an ideology, then as above - it’s a true statement that everybody will lose weight if they keep the “In” less than the “Out.” There’s no logical blame to be laid at the feet of CICO here. Taubes - maybe he has a point, but it also doesn’t matter for CICO - whatever the direction of causality, the end result of CICO is still going to be there.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #88

CICO the dietary regimen (as I term it) and/or the ideology (as Paul terms it) is not the straight application of the laws of thermodynamics. Doug, neither I nor anyone else argues that the first law does not apply to human metabolism as much as anywhere else. But you claim ‘CICO’ takes into account the second law and recognizes that the various caloric sources have different effects. Please cite some reference from CICO the ideology or dietary regimen to back up that claim. I have not seen any such. What I have seen is ‘a calorie is a calorie is a calorie’. Just as the article by Feinman I linked above.

What I have seen is people ruining their metabolisms precisely because ‘a calorie is not a calorie is not a calorie’. Many folks on this forum did this to themselves and spent years undoing the damage. CICO the regimen/ideology tells folks simply to eat less and move more. It tells them to eat less fat and less calories overall. But it doesn’t tell them that glucose derived from carbs drives insulin to store fat, as they are starving themselves trying to burn it. It doesn’t tell them about all the hormonal interactions that occur to help or hinder utilizing onboard fat stores. It simply over simplifies everything into reducing ‘in’ and increasing ‘out’. Ignoring what happens in the process. And for a lot of folks, maybe most if not all, what happens in the process can be devastating.

Most fail because the regimen/ideology is not sustainable - eventually you have to start eating again or die of starvation. Because the process ruined the metabolism, back comes to metabolic dysfunction. This is what I have an argument with - not the laws of thermodynamics.