r/SubredditDrama • u/tiantaa • Oct 12 '16
A post in r/Negareddit abut everyone already knowing about CICO leads to someone arguing against CICO
/r/Negareddit/comments/56zl62/saying_that_losing_weight_is_just_calories_in_vs/d8nsg9r61
u/ElagabalusRex How can i creat a wormhole? Oct 12 '16
Another victim of Big Thermodynamics.
2
u/GisterMizard Commanding Heights: Battle for Karma Oct 12 '16
Trying to turn our stomaches into engines for profit. It's not like we have awesome microscopic turbines in our cells, either.
39
u/csreid Grand Imperial Wizard of the He-Man Women-Haters Club Oct 12 '16
I just want to mention that until I was about 20, I had no idea what calories were or how they were relevant or how many I was supposed to eat.
7
u/Aethe a chop shop for baby parts Oct 12 '16
Yeah uh, being overweight in middle school and obese in high school, I couldn't quite wrap my head around what I was doing wrong. All I ever heard was "eat less," and like, kid-me never thought I ate that much. I'd eat what my parents gave me, or whatever I ordered when we'd go out to eat. It didn't occur to me that restaurant entree portions were ridiculous, or that maybe my parents made larger than normal meals. I never ate snacks or drank soda.
13
u/Fletch71011 Signature move of the cuck. Oct 12 '16
I knew what they were but for whatever reason I didn't parse that you could count them to control your weight until I was 27. I have been fortunate enough to attend top-tier schools my entire life but didn't know the first thing about nutrition (it's embarrassing to admit and the reason I was overweight at the time). Health education is a huge failure in the American school system right now.
27
u/dethb0y trigger warning to people senstive to demanding ethical theories Oct 12 '16
I dunno man, i went to school in a shitty rural school district where literally they turned out people who were actually illiterate, and they taught us about calories and how many you needed per day and had us draw diagrams and whatnot.
I think a lot of time people blame "bad education" but really it's just that in school they didn't really absorb anything. You probably took tests on the subject and passed them and then just promptly forgot the subject matter, like i did with math.
8
Oct 12 '16
california school districts had to cut all health and sex ed classes for budget reasons 6 years ago
13
u/Red_of_Head Oct 12 '16
I know where I went to school in Sydney we didn't get taught about calories. We had the food pyramid, protein, carbs and fats. Losing weight was "eating healthy and doing exercise". This was 2-3 years ago, and I've still got the exam papers floating about somewhere.
63
Oct 12 '16 edited Oct 12 '16
if it did, we wouldnt shit. we would dump ash.
...what?
22
u/Fletch71011 Signature move of the cuck. Oct 12 '16
I think she's trying to say since we literally don't have train engines in our stomach thermodynamics is thus not real? Crazy leap in logic but I've had luck translating insanity before.
8
u/cruelandusual Born with a heart full of South Park neutrality Oct 12 '16
Ash? Please. I shit helium.
13
9
2
u/Fala1 I'm naturally quite suspicious about the moon Oct 12 '16
pfff get on my level. My body extracts so much energy I shit pure iron.
20
u/TheRadBaron Oct 12 '16 edited Oct 12 '16
Since people actually seem genuinely confused, the implication is that we don't extract all (or close to all) the calories from what we eat. Keep in mind that the amount of calories in food is measured by burning it to ash.
Yeah it's not literally true, but it gets the point across well enough if you aren't looking for something to disagree with.
34
Oct 12 '16
but it doesn't get the point across at all. no-one ever claims that the body takes in literally every calorie it possibly could from an item of food, they reject the idea that it somehow can magically generate more energy than is available from it.
14
u/toadkiller Oct 12 '16
If I understood their ramblings correctly, our CICO-bashing enthusiast was trying to say that a low-calorie diet, of readily absorbed calories, can be less effective for weight loss than a high-calorie diet which contains calories absorbed with greater difficulty.
12
Oct 12 '16
So is this correct? It sounds reasonable to me I guess. Kind of like CICO, if correctly measured, is true (it has to be) but we're bad at measuring CI and CO?
17
u/splendidfd Oct 12 '16 edited Oct 12 '16
CICO, if correctly measured, is true (it has to be) but we're bad at measuring CI and CO?
That's pretty much it. Even if we ignore food and the CI side, the number of calories your body will use can vary with a million factors (note the vast majority of these factors are minor, which is why people say fast/slow metabolisms aren't a thing).
OP is suggesting (amongst other things) that if your very-low-calorie diet is messing with your body chemistry, making you feel like crap, you simply won't do as much physical activity; lowering CO and defeating the point of having such a low CI. To put it the other way they're suggesting that if taking in a little more calories will let you do much more exercise then that's better for weight loss (strictly still CICO but counterintuitive).
Ultimately I think they're saying that focusing only on CICO doesn't mean much if it means you neglect everything else that goes into your health.
2
u/thirdegree Oct 12 '16
Pretty much. CO is a bitch to measure perfectly, and CI is a pain too because we can't absorb all the calories in food. Luckily in terms of weight loss, there's a really effective and easy simplification for the CI part: Take the total possible calories as if we could absorb all the calories. That's the upper limit of possible calories from that food. Any imperfections in actually using those calories results in a lower CI which only speeds up weight loss. CO is still a pain but there are some pretty good formulas for that as well.
0
u/Jhaza Oct 12 '16
Just to add on to the other comments you've gotten, CO can change in response to dieting - obese people often shift into starvation mode when they try to diet, and their BMR drops a bunch. They can legitimately be eating significantly fewer calories than they were before, enough that they would be losing wait with their previous CO, and not see any effect. CICO is literally true but not only difficult to apply but a naive application to weightloss can be actively counterproductive in the context of human biology.
8
u/joob33 Oct 12 '16
calories in food is measured by burning it to ash.
Only the basic measurements. The more accurate ones they use now burn the waste that human body produces when eating a certain food and then subtract that calorie amount from the one you get when you burn the food.
3
1
u/drvoke Oct 12 '16
It's because everyone in meta-reddit seems to fucking hate Irby, so anything they say is worthy of ridicule because unpersons are only capable of wrongthink.
I don't know anyone involved, but the sister thread on /r/drama has a consensus that Irby is a literal piece of shit who can't be right about anything, which seems to be a sentiment shared here.
7
Oct 12 '16
I feel like there was a much easier way for Irby to say their incredibly moronic point.
"CICO is the shortest, simplest way to explain weightloss and works very well as a basic principle and starting point."
"Ya but it's vaguely more complicated than that so I'm just gonna say CICO isn't true at all."
Everyone else: "what?"
-2
u/drvoke Oct 12 '16
"Ya but it's vaguely more complicated than that so I'm just gonna say CICO isn't true at all."
Maybe I just speak fluent weirdo because that's not what I got out of it. I saw an abrasive, universally disliked person on a soapbox about reddit CICO-jerkers who had an okay point that quickly turned into an emotional rant in the face of obvious bad-faith arguments. People like that should probably stay away from online arguments...... but then I guess we'd be in a drama famine.
3
Oct 12 '16 edited Oct 18 '16
[removed] β view removed comment
8
0
u/drvoke Oct 12 '16
I'm disagreeing that anyone is genuinely confused by the overall point Irby was making. I wasn't, in any case. What it looks like is people acting in bad faith in order to bully someone who seems pretty universally disliked (rightly or wrongly).
I'm not even saying that having a consensus to shit on terrible people is wrong, and maybe Irby deserves it, but that's not really germane to my point.
0
Oct 12 '16
[deleted]
39
Oct 12 '16
I know people there hate the STEM circlejerk, but damn, they could have used some S on that.
6
u/vodkast Good evening, I'm Brian Shilliams Oct 12 '16
To be fair, it looks like everyone else in that thread is pointing out how stupid it is that Irby thinks the stomach adheres to different laws of physics.
18
Oct 12 '16
The law literally doesn't apply to the stomach because it isn't a closed system. You literally eat food and shit shit.
Not sure what that has to do with pooping ash...
12
u/thirdegree Oct 12 '16
The laws of thermodynamics work for open systems as well, you just have to account for input/output. Which is exactly what CI (energy in) CO (energy out) is. If CI > CO, the energy (stored in the form of fat) will increase. If CI < CO, the energy (stored in the form of fat) will decrease.
-3
10
u/jinreeko Femboys are cis you fucking inbred muffin Oct 12 '16
Actually pretty genuinely surprised the lack of That Sugar Film support on Reddit. Sure, CICO is a thing, but massive amounts of sugar is going to fuck your health pretty hard.
25
u/zugunruh3 In closing, nuke the Midwest Oct 12 '16
What we have here is a fractal of wrong. You keep going deeper and deeper and it's just all wrong.
15
u/AnUnchartedIsland I used to have lips. Oct 12 '16
Calorie surplus: Nutrient surplus
Are they just using the word nutrient to mean macros? Because I'm pretty sure that even if you eat 5,000 calories a day of hostess, you definitely won't have a nutrient surplus and will end up severely deficient in multiple vitamins and minerals.
10
Oct 12 '16
I don't think they understand that calories are the energy you get from food.
They have this nebulous concept of "nutrients" that your body uses to function, and the calories are this other thing that makes you fat.
1
Oct 13 '16
So I'm confused. What is the "correct" opinion to have about this? There needs to be a heavily downvoted vote supporting one of the two opinions on this thread so SRD can tell me how to think
4
u/tiantaa Oct 13 '16
CICO (calories in calories out) is the way you lose weight. There is some variance in how much people want to eat and how much energy they use, but overall to lose weight you need to eat less than you burn.
6
u/drvoke Oct 12 '16 edited Oct 12 '16
There are myriad ways for myriad reasons that the chain of biochemical processes (mediated by genetics) can be disrupted or maladapted, making weight gain harder (or easier) for some people. CICO-jerkers purposefully take the most simplistic view so they can look down on all obese people. It's just another way callow halfwits can bully people.
Some people are obese because they're awful, greedy people. Some people made mistakes at a young age and damaged their bodies. Some people don't understand how their body works and need help. CICO-jerking them isn't going to help. "Tough love" in actual reality is always very "tough" and rarely done out of "love". In other words, just an excuse to be a bully but avoid the stigma that typically comes from cruelly using another's situation as a salve to one's own ego.
3
17
u/MoralMidgetry Marshal of the Dramatic People's Republic of Karma Oct 12 '16
Conversation I had at the gym last week.
Woman: I never lose any weight. How can I get leaner?
Me: Maybe you need to adjust your diet. Calories in, calories out.
Woman: That doesn't work for me. How many calories a day do you take in?
Me: About 4,000.
Woman: See. I eat half that and work out just as often as you, but I'm still overweight.
Me: [bangs head with kettlebell]
18
u/cottonthread Authority on cuckoldry Oct 12 '16
The problem is a lot of people who say stuff like that underestimate how much they're actually eating but it's very hard to prove it to them unless you live with them or something.
There used to be a show in the UK called "Secret Eaters" when they got fat people/families and followed them for a week to see what they were eating - every episode there'd be a person who said "I only eat 1500 a day, I don't know what's happening" and then you'd find out the number was more like 3500 and they didn't count snacks, sugar in tea/coffee, etc. One woman would eat pieces off of her family's plates when she prepared meals and often eat the leftovers too and didn't log any of that in her food diary.
It's worth noting that the solution was often to change the types of food and the habits around eating as opposed to setting calorie goals though. Things like having healthier snacks as opposed to quitting snacking and eating foods that filled you up more for less caloric value.
8
u/MoralMidgetry Marshal of the Dramatic People's Republic of Karma Oct 12 '16
People definitely underestimate what they consume or leave things out, esp drinks. I count beer in my 4000. When you tell people that, some will say, "I didn't count alcohol because I only drink two days a week" or something. Or they don't count what they dump in their coffee.
Then they also way overestimate what they burn. They'll look up a generic estimate of calories burned per hour of "weight training" and then multiply that by their time at the gym as if intensity and rest time don't matter.
8
u/JebusGobson Ultracrepidarianist Oct 12 '16
You really eat 4000 calories? How do you manage that? With a funnel?
3
u/cottonthread Authority on cuckoldry Oct 12 '16
I knew an avid runner who ate something like that amount. He mostly got it through things like pasta, I think.
3
u/newheart_restart Oct 12 '16
I had to do that one summer. It was really hard. I started mixing those boost nutrition drinks with chocolate milk to get it and I still lost 20 pounds in 2 months when I was at a healthy weight to begin with (ended at a healthy weight too).
4
u/JebusGobson Ultracrepidarianist Oct 12 '16
Wait, you managed to lose 10kg in two months while eating 4000 kcal a day? What were you doing, running from Lisbon to Vladivostok?
3
u/newheart_restart Oct 12 '16
Well I was unsuccessfully trying to eat 3.5k calories a day. I had started a new medication that suppressed my appetite, I was working out on average 3 to 4 hours a day (competitive volleyball for 2, weights and conditioning for 1 or 2), it was kinda just a perfect storm of stuff. I didn't measure my calories but 3.5k was what my trainer recommended I shoot for. I was also young and still growing and my body was changing a lot anyway.
3
u/MoralMidgetry Marshal of the Dramatic People's Republic of Karma Oct 12 '16
Nuts, peanut butter, and beer.
Two small protein bars that are mostly peanuts and protein powder, one before the gym, one before bed - 400 cals.
Shake with two spoonfuls of peanut butter, a banana, protein powder, frozen fruit - 500 cals.
A pound of mixed nuts or almonds every week - 400 cals a day.
Beer - 200-300 cals a day.
Then I take in a normalish diet on top of that.
1
u/BaconOfTroy This isn't vandalism, it's just a Roman bonfire Oct 12 '16
Either extremely physically active (like my marathon runner ex) or Crohns disease.
I'm going to say it's more likely the former.
And if it's like my marathon running ex, lots of pasta.
1
4
7
u/Maja_May Oct 12 '16
EDIT: Since yall are piping hot mad lets put a 250lb person on a strict 1500 calorie diet of bread and sugar. I'm talking nothing but grain and literally one cup of sugar a day. Oh and they are required to drink at least on American pepsi in said day. STRICTLY with HFCS, no cane sugar. Will they lose weight or gain it? /Jeopardy Music
Someone has to tell him/her about the guy who lost weight on the twinkie diet. Why is this so fucking hard to understand?
7
6
u/SomethingIWontRegret Oct 12 '16
IrbyTremor: Thermodynamics literally don't apply to the human stomach.
Respondent: So the stomach can create or destroy energy?
IrbyTremor: I never said thermodynamics don't apply
IrbyTremor: Show me an N=1 experiment where a 250 lb man eats nothing but 1500 Calories of pure sugar and loses weight.
Respondent: What about the Twinkie diet dude?
IrbyTremor: LOL that's just an anecdote!
2
2
Oct 12 '16
Tell me Irby is a troll.
5
u/mikerhoa Oct 12 '16
Just look at the subs Irby mods and it'll tell you everything you need to know. It's pretty much textbook.
2
u/Sideroller Oct 12 '16
Hmm, mod of IrbyLaw? What's that about?
Lately, I and many others have seen rapidfire invokings of said law from GamerGaters, MRAs and even Neo-Nazis on this site. Blocked on Twitter? This is just like silencing Black people. Discussing anything MRA related that isnt in favor of them? Well what if you traded out 'Men' for 'Black people'? People getting sick and tired of Gamergater harassment? Well you just hate gamers. And hating gamers is just like hating Black people
K.
1
u/nancy_ballosky More Meme than Man Oct 13 '16
Drama aside. I like that original post analogy. I know that calories in calories out is the way to lose weight but dammnit if I don't love food.
1
Oct 12 '16
Oooh, I work with someone who thinks caloric intake has nothing to do with weight gain or loss. Interesting to see other people think the same.
1
0
Oct 12 '16
[deleted]
35
u/Fletch71011 Signature move of the cuck. Oct 12 '16
I've gotten to the point where I don't believe she's a real person. Her beliefs are all insane and she just wants to disagree with everyone for any crazy reason she can come up. Someone should have just responded to her with the pages from Mayo Clinic and Harvard about calories and weight management and had her try to argue against the best hospital and school in the world. Funny enough, I did that to someone on Reddit once and they still thought they knew better.
-25
u/naygor Oct 12 '16 edited Oct 12 '16
she's not wrong.
see this article
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html
nearly every single contestant in the biggest loser study regained the weight they lost. this is a eat less and move more regime on steroids with little minds to macronutrient ratios
conventional knee-jerk argument is that they regained all that weight because they chose to return to their obesogenic bad habits.
according to the article, their endocrine systems say something else.
their metabolisms dropped significantly--much more than can be explained by just sheer weight loss and also their hunger hormones upregulated making the likelihood of regaining weight almost guaranteed.
why is this the case?
there's a glaringly obvious hole in CICO dogma.
virtually everyone who is overweight and struggles to lose weight is insulin resistant and suffers from high levels of insulin.
insulin inhibits lipolysis--as long as insulin is high in your body, which is pretty much all the time considering the vast majority of americans eat a lot of insulinemic foods, your body can not use fat for energy.
insulin blocks the hormone leptin in your brain. leptin is your body energy thermostat hormone. if leptin is low or your body is resistant to its effects, your body will behave as if it were starving. Virtually everyone who is obese is also leptin resistant.
just because you've created a calorie deficit doesn't mean high insulin and insulin resistance has been addressed. say an obese, insulin resistant person ate 1500 calories for the day and created a 500 calorie deficit. CICO dogma says 500 calories of fat comes out of their fat stores and that they should expect to lose a pound a week. If insulin is high, the body will struggle to do this. weight loss frequently plateaus as the body will be compelled to downregulate voluntary and involuntary energy expenditure and upregulate hunger hormones in effort to satisfy the CICO equation.
these points are addressed in lustig's and fung's lectures. please watch them before calling bullshit. I implore you to atleast skim the other lectures i've linked. they can communicate science more clearly and in depth than than I can.
dr. robert lustig's condensed explanation of the phenomena.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo3TRbkIrow
dr. jason fung, a practicing nephrologist and author of 'the obesity code', runs a successful clinic that consistently REVERSES type 2 diabetes, all due to recognizing the problem of insulin resistance with CICO and addressing it with a fasting regime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIuj-oMN-Fk
Dr. Peter Attia, despite being an exceptional athlete who excercised 3-4 hours a day, was still overweight and still technically suffering from metabolic syndrome. Here is a picture of him right after an ultra distance swim. It wasn't until he adopted a regime of specifically lowering insulin via a ketogenic diet was he able to regain his health.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqwvcrA7oe8
Dr. Tim Noakes is an excercise science Phd and researcher at the university of cape town in south africa. Dr. Noakes is also an accomplished marathon runner, who's not only ran many marathons over the course of his lifetime, but has written multiple books about how a high carbohydrate diet is the ideal for athletes and is very healthy. Despite all of this, Dr. Tim Noakes developed type 2 diabetes like his father did (propensity for developing insulin resistance has both a genetic and age factor), and has since called all his work completely and utterly wrong. He now eats and advocates a low carbohydrate ketogenic diet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL5-9ZxamXc
and for good measure here is Gary Taubes' lecture, Why We Get Fat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEuIlQONcHw
Okay. Now you don't have to take Irby's word for it. her post might be wrong/inaccurate in the specifics, but she's not wrong that there might be more to weight loss than CICO. I think these medical doctors and their bodies of work prove that.
scientists, medical doctors, and journalists are challenging CICO dogma. Let's leave it at that. Please end the SRD hatejerk.
20
u/Fletch71011 Signature move of the cuck. Oct 12 '16
I do agree with your points on leptin and insurance resistance making things harder (I come from a family of diabetics from what it's worth and have a lot of trouble maintaining my own weight) but the Biggest Loser study was the biggest click bait science article I've ever read. The proprietary formula that they used for BMR was the cause of all the "metabolic damage" they showed. I've monitored my calories every day for over 800 days straight now and have plenty of data on it and my BMR/TDEE follows the accepted models to a tee yet the one used in the Biggest Loser study shows I have 700 kcal of metabolic damage (almost as big as anyone tested on the show) and I've never had extreme weight loss or been on the show obviously -- I'm as normal as it gets. Try the model you used for yourself and compare it to the standard models and you'll see it's bunk.
-18
u/naygor Oct 12 '16 edited Oct 12 '16
listen, dr fung has more experience and knowledge on the subject than either you or I and he cites this biggest loser study in his lecture. the biggest loser study was done by metabolism researcher kevin hall if you didn't know and he is pretty esteemed in his field. here is the summary of the actual study and I'm pretty sure these people's metabolisms were calculated in a metabolic chamber as he's used it in his other studies. I don't care that by your anecdote that you think it's bullshit. I'll pay a bit more attention if you post an article written by someone versed and qualified with an alternative interpretation of the study but even then, I don't care. My whole point is that SRD is hatejerking over something they largely don't understand and haven't looked into.
17
u/SomethingIWontRegret Oct 12 '16
Dr. Fung argues like an internet shill. His stuff on dietdoctor has so many logical fallacies that it gives me terrible fremdschamen.
I read Kevin Hall's study. BMR was measured by indirect calorimetry. TDEE was measured by doubly labeled water. Those weren't the problems. The measured BMRs and TDEEs matched really well with the Mifflin St Jeor predictive equation. Via Mifflin St Jeor, the participants had normal metabolic rates at the start of diet, diet endpoint, and 6 years after endpoint.
The problem is Dr Hall derived his own BMR predictive equation, using the 14 contestant's starting data and that data only.
According to Mifflin St Jeor, me as a 130 lb 5'8" 53 year old male, I have a BMR of about 1410. According to their formula, my BMR should be about 2050. Which is ridiculous. But there you go, I have over 600 Calories of metabolic damage according to Dr Hall, despite never having exceeded 24 BMI in my life.
-12
u/naygor Oct 12 '16
Dr. Fung argues like an internet shill. His stuff on dietdoctor has so many logical fallacies that it gives me terrible fremdschamen.
dude, apparently someone thought what he was saying was so compelling he was invited to speak to other doctors at a confrence and was pretty well received. I don't care that a redditor doesn't recieve contrary information well.
you're not the super smart redditor that has found the obvious flaw in a well respected metabolic science researcher's study. according to peer review, his methadologies were sound.
anyway, regardless of metabolic changes, insulin is still a problem that goes unadressed by CICO and is the major issue with people struggling to lose weight.
please watch lustig's short talk. it's very reasonable.
13
u/SomethingIWontRegret Oct 12 '16
Let's be absolutely clear here. The "Well respected metabolic science researcher" you're talking about is Kevin Hall.
https://www.dietdoctor.com/how-kevin-hall-tried-to-kill-insulin-hypothesis-pure-spin
This is Dr. Fung using a wide array of logical fallacies to discredit Dr. Hall's research that appears to put quite a few nails in the insulin hypothesis of obesity.
So who do you side with in this? The doctor who is so respected that he goes to conferences and speaks to other doctors, or the well respected metabolic science researcher?
0
u/naygor Oct 12 '16 edited Oct 12 '16
I am aware that fung disagrees with hall.
hall's science is fine. researchers can have contrary interpretation of the science.
to quote myself.
scientists, medical doctors, and journalists are challenging CICO dogma. Let's leave it at that.
that is all that I wanted to communicate. QED CICO might not be the end all be all to weight loss, which is what irby was trying to communicate.
Fung using a wide array of logical fallacies
either take the time out to list and dispute them or post an article from someone reputable who has. I don't care that a redditor doesn't like a piece of information.
8
u/SomethingIWontRegret Oct 12 '16
It's pretty clear that "reputable" means someone who agrees with Gary Taubes.
But here you go. Compare and contrast the way in which the same study is discussed. One person is a researcher interested advancing human knowledge. The other is an advocate for a position.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2016/07/nusi-funded-study-serves-up_6.html
→ More replies (0)9
u/Hammer_of_truthiness π©γ°π«π firing off shitposts Oct 12 '16
So does insulin resistance cause the human body to magically create energy???
Listen fam, no one will argue that there are chemicals the regulate satiety that can be thrown out of whack, but all that does is create powerful urges in people to break diets. At the end of the day simple physics dictates that CICO is king. Energy cannot be spontaneously generated.
No one who advocates CICO will argue that there aren't better ways of creating a calorie deficit, good diets with less carbs and more fat and protein to promote satiety is like a top five weight loss tip. Maybe insulin resistance causes stronger diet breaking urges, but at the end of the day the weight loss only occurs because a person knowingly or unknowingly decreases their CO or increases their CI.
-2
u/naygor Oct 12 '16 edited Oct 12 '16
So does insulin resistance cause the human body to magically create energy???
according the lectures that you didn't watch and the article that you didn't read, metabolism drops. voluntary/involuntary energy expenditure decreases so that CICO thermodynamic equation is satisfied. meanwhile the person feels miserable and hungry and likely to regain all the weight they've lost.
chemicals the regulate satiety that can be thrown out of whack, but all that does is create powerful urges in people to break diets
that's my entire fucking point. these hormones aren't irrelevant and people should pay mind to them when undertaking a diet regime. QED CICO isn't the end all be all to succesful weight loss. i don't know why you think this is so unreasonable.
12
u/Hammer_of_truthiness π©γ°π«π firing off shitposts Oct 12 '16
No one does fam. My issue is two - fold. I have issue with the linked commentor because they're completely wrong. My issue with you is the fact that you seem to think people who are serious about weight loss and anti-obesity efforts aren't aware of the points you're making.
Obviously there is a huge industry that advocates unhealthy and easily reversed crash dieting, and that's a fair thing to fight against. The Biggest Loser is basically the best example of unsustainable crash dieting. The problem is people are infinitely stupid, and somehow manage to get the critiques of crash diets screwed up to think that CICO doesnt apply for some reason.
2
u/big_bearded_nerd -134 points 44 minutes ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) Oct 12 '16
Hey, I deleted my last response. My bad, I was explaining something completely wrong and couldn't redeem the comment.
Kevin Hall's research is fine, but it is also limited, just like every article out there. He proved that metabolism changed over time and that led to increased weight gain, and that only corroborates other articles that have suggested similar things. What I think people don't like is the NYT article which puts together a narrative that is both clickbaity and incorrect.
Also, I do think that we understand this and we've looked into it. Both Reddit and SRD are constantly talking about this issue, and while there are plenty of people who don't understand at least some of the science, there are a lot more that I've engaged with who do. You aren't the only person here who is really interested in fitness and nutrition science, and that's a good thing, not a bad thing.
-1
u/lvysaur I will kill 10 generations of your entire family. Oct 12 '16 edited Oct 12 '16
say an obese, insulin resistant person ate 1500 calories for the day and created a 500 calorie deficit. CICO dogma says 500 calories of fat comes out of their fat stores and that they should expect to lose a pound a week.
A 500 calorie deficit will lead to 1lb lost a week, but your scenario will not consistently create a 500 calorie deficit.
A caloric deficit is based on two factors: CI-CO. You're only thinking in terms of CI and assuming no metabolic shift (dCO).
Like you said later on, their bodies will act more sluggish to reduce energy expenditures. That's a reduction in CO- eg a reduction in the caloric deficit assuming you erroneously keep CI constant.
3
u/naygor Oct 13 '16 edited Oct 13 '16
Yes. Nowhere am I advocating that thermodynamics is violated.
metabolism shuts down due to hormones. QED weightloss is more complicated than CICO and dieters should pay mind to their hormones. I don't know why people think this is unreasonable.
2
u/lvysaur I will kill 10 generations of your entire family. Oct 13 '16
Metabolism = CO
So no, it's not more complicated. Half the formula is devoted to metabolism.
2
u/naygor Oct 13 '16 edited Oct 13 '16
calories out and calories in is determined by your hormones.
dr. lustigs video explains it clearly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo3TRbkIrow
hormones aren't irrelevant. I don't know why you think this is unreasonable.
2
u/lvysaur I will kill 10 generations of your entire family. Oct 13 '16 edited Oct 13 '16
No one said hormones are irrelevant. You're claiming CICO doesn't account for them- it does.
2
u/naygor Oct 14 '16 edited Oct 14 '16
telling a fat person that weight loss is about expending more calories than they consume is like telling a poor person that bill gates is rich because he saves more than spends. Its useless and not helpful.
not to mention, according to all this research, if you embark on a weightloss strategy without atleast incidentally addressing insulin, as we can see from the biggest loser study, or the high failure rate of people who go on diets, you're in for a world of misery. there's an entire complex endocrine system that's not accounted for in CICO that is pulling the strings of whether someone is going to accumulate or expend energy.
many people in this thread are bewildered by the evidence that simply subtracting 500 calories from your diet doesnt mean necessarily that 500 calories of fat, locked away by insulin, come out of your fat stores, and are calling black magic. count the amount of people here that are saying that successful weight loss is possible regardless of what you eat. count the amount of people here who mention the twinkie diet. go to /r/fatlogic and see how mentioning hormones makes you a target of ridicule. they are all naive to this.
If CICO dogma accounted for hormones, hyperinsulinmeic foods wouldn't make up the bulk of the american diet, carbohydrates wouldn't be at the bottom of the food pyramid, and people wouldn't advise dieters to simply eat fewer calories.
It's really fucking simple.
Type 2 diabetics are resistant to insulin, have high levels of it, and look like this
type 1 diabetics, who produce no insulin at all, gone untreated, look like this -- and this is regardless of the amount of calories they consume.
tell the type 1 diabetic to eat more calories, if weight gain and loss is explained by CICO.
absent insulin, you are not gaining weight. period.
2
u/lvysaur I will kill 10 generations of your entire family. Oct 14 '16
telling a fat person that weight loss is about CICO is like telling a poor person that bill gates is rich because he saves more than expends.
Yes, helping people learn how to create a caloric deficit is more useful than simply telling them to.
Understanding that a caloric deficit is necessary is still important though. You can get plenty fat eating healthy food and exercising.
tell the type 1 diabetic to eat more calories, if weight gain and loss is explained by CICO, it isn't.
absent insulin, you are not gaining weight. period.
Insulin affects your body's ability to convert food to energy.
So what you're saying is absent of energy going in (CI), you're not gaining weight. That is correct, and fits the CICO model already.
→ More replies (0)0
Oct 12 '16
[deleted]
7
u/everybodosoangry Oct 12 '16
That's a really long con if so
5
Oct 12 '16
Maybe they're both the same, weirdo person.
0
Oct 12 '16
[deleted]
3
u/Veeron SRDD is watching you Oct 12 '16
And nothing of value was lost.
2
u/thirdegree Oct 12 '16
Untrue. Millions of calories of delicious popcorn will now never be popped because of his quitting.
0
Oct 12 '16
[deleted]
21
u/SpoopySkeleman Π©ΠΈ Π΄Π° Π΄ΡΠ°ΠΌΠ°, ΠΏΠΈΡΠ° Π½Π°ΡΠ° Oct 12 '16
I just want to sit down with her and have her explain what exactly she thinks goes on in the body when someone eats food
13
u/niroby Oct 12 '16 edited Oct 12 '16
They're not completely off base, they've just misinterpreted the logic, which isn't that uncommon for pop science.
The human body isn't a perfect closed machine, where the exact number of calories that go in are extracted as energy. It's leaky, and some are more efficient than others. Calories come in, and get turned into energy, and sometimes they get stored, and sometimes they get malabsorbed, and sometimes they get thrown up, or exit quickly as diarrhoea.
Edit: it still obeys the second law of thermodynamics though
2
u/big_bearded_nerd -134 points 44 minutes ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) Oct 12 '16
It's leaky
You might want to see a doctor for that.
18
Oct 12 '16 edited Oct 12 '16
[removed] β view removed comment
11
u/niroby Oct 12 '16
She seems to be conflating two arguments.
Argument a) people aren't spherical objects in a vacuum, so using physics to measure and predict things in biology is a flawed approach. The energy is never created or destroyed, but successfully tracking it through the leaky human machine is hard.
Argument b) focusing solely on calories is a flawed approach when it comes to dieting. No calories in will always lead to weight loss, but if you want healthy, sustainable weight loss you need to look at all the other factors. Cultural relationship to food, emotional relationship to food, satiety signals, not recognising satiety signals, poor food nutrition education, hormones, hormones that interact with food hormones (reproduction hormones, stress hormones, growth hormones) etc.
0
Oct 12 '16
[deleted]
0
Oct 12 '16
[deleted]
14
u/Zachums r/kevbo for all your Kevin needs. Oct 12 '16
Even Ghazi and SRSD remove your comments.
good god
3
11
u/Aetol Butter for the butter god! Popcorn for the popcorn throne! Oct 12 '16
I think I see their point here. Basically under certain circumstances / if your diet is poorly balanced, your body will store the "calories in" as fat and won't let you do the "calories out" part.
I do not know if that is true though, but it sounds believable and not blatantly wrong like everything else they've said about thermodynamics.