Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76   ^
Old Fri, Oct-16-09, 23:09
tiredangel tiredangel is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,110
 
Plan: Carnivore
Stats: 235/175/150 Female 5'7"
BF:
Progress: 71%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kilton
tiredangel: The fact that raising CI can cause weight loss doesn't disprove what I'm saying in the slightest. Any claims to the contrary just show a lack of understanding about what I'm saying. Perhaps it's my fault for not being clear enough.

If increasing CI results in weight loss, it simply means that CO also goes up. If you're saying CO doesn't go up such that CI > CO, you need to explain where those extra calories go. Calories are energy and energy is mass. Where does that mass go if weight is decreasing? If you can't answer this very basic of questions, I'm sorry but your theory has nothing to stand on.

BTW, to assume that energy is wasted in this scenario when CO goes up (and then to base your objection to the theory on the fact that wasted energy doesn't make sense) is invalid. First of all LC tends to increase one's energy, which will result in more movement one way or another. Second, there's no basis to assume that any energy is "wasted". The body could be using that energy for useful functions of which we have no idea. And indeed, this makes far more sense than wasting it -- otherwise why would the body have increased CI in the first place? (Hunger regulation caused CI to increase, unless you're intentionally stuffing yourself with calories when you're full.)


You want this to be simple. The whole CI/CO thing is SO simple, sounds so good, yet is not the experience of many here. Metabolism and fat storage is so much more complicated. I'm saying, in MY case, I have dieted a low fat diet while exercising over an hour a day and had to take in far fewer calories to lose weight than eating low carb and being far more sedintary.

You also don't find people getting underweight eating low carb. It's almost like one's body, if one has not totally destroyed their metabolism, while eating a healthy, low carb diet settles on a healthy amount of body fat regardless of calories. And that healthy amount of body fat seems to vary from person to person.

You may not want to believe it, but there is far more to the story than CI/CO, but I have a feeling you would rather stick with your belief here. That's fine, if it works for you, more power to you.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #77   ^
Old Fri, Oct-16-09, 23:52
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Posts: 19,575
 
Plan: ~VLC/~dirty primal
Stats: 520/361/350 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 94%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

If calories are all that matters, what is left to discuss? Once you're about age 9 you can do the math. OK, you're done.
Reply With Quote
  #78   ^
Old Sat, Oct-17-09, 06:57
kilton kilton is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 74
 
Plan: My plan
Stats: 150/145/145 Male 6ft
BF:
Progress:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiredangel
You want this to be simple. The whole CI/CO thing is SO simple, sounds so good, yet is not the experience of many here.

I'm saying that it is indeed the experience of many here. In fact, it's the experience of everyone, whether they realize it or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiredangel
Metabolism and fat storage is so much more complicated. I'm saying, in MY case, I have dieted a low fat diet while exercising over an hour a day and had to take in far fewer calories to lose weight than eating low carb and being far more sedintary.

This doesn't disprove CI/CO. It just means that different types of calories (fat vs. protein vs. carbs) affect metabolism differently. CI/CO is still valid at the end of the day. It has to be. You've offered no theory to the contrary.
Reply With Quote
  #79   ^
Old Sat, Oct-17-09, 07:43
Valtor's Avatar
Valtor Valtor is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,035
 
Plan: VLC 4 days a week
Stats: 337/258/200 Male 6' 1"
BF:
Progress: 58%
Location: Québec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kilton
I'm saying that it is indeed the experience of many here. In fact, it's the experience of everyone, whether they realize it or not...This doesn't disprove CI/CO. It just means that different types of calories (fat vs. protein vs. carbs) affect metabolism differently. CI/CO is still valid at the end of the day. It has to be. You've offered no theory to the contrary.

Ok here we go again. It's not a question of CI/CO being valid are not, it's a question of CI/CO being the CAUSE of excess weight gain or not.

I will try to validate my assumptions with you.

Do you agree with the following three statements?

- The laws of thermodynamics applies to the human body as a whole, but they also applies to all systems inside our body and even to all cells individually.

- Our internal systems are all regulated in big part by our whole hormonal soup (not just insulin).

- These systems are also independent of each other, including adipose tissue. So if what regulates them is not in order, they will not react properly.

Until we have agreed on these statements we will not understand each other. If you do not agree, please let me know what your version of the facts is.

I will assume for now that you do agree.

Now our hypothesis says that obesity is a symptom of a problem in the regulation of our adipose tissue.

Here is how this works. Let's say you eat a good satisfying meal. Once this energy is in the blood stream, it is available to be taken up by the cells of your body, including your fat cells. Normally, a meal will give you enough energy to function until the next meal. Your liver (via glycogen from glucose) and your fat cells (via fatty acids) gather a great deal of energy a short time after the meal. This energy will be used in between meals.

Our body tries extremely hard to maintain our total energy at the same amount. So when your reserves starts to get under a certain point. You will start to get hungry. When you eat your next meal, you will eat until you are not hungry anymore. If you eat less or there is not enough food, then you will stay hungry for a while and if there are still no food coming, your body will start compensating. It could slow down and/or you could become fatigued and won't feel like moving too much. This will prevent you from using too much of your reserves. It's a simple evolutionary survival tactic.

Of course, even with this mechanism, you still need to use some energy. So gradually, you will use some energy mainly from the glycogen and to a lesser extent from the fat cells. Once there is no glycogen left, your muscles will start to be broken down to create glucose and your fat cells will provide energy too.

Once you start eating again, your body's priority will be to replenish these reserves to their nominal level. So whether you force feed or underfeed yourself, your body will do what it needs to do to bring back your energy reserves to their nominal levels. If you force feed a runner, once the food is digested, he won't be able to stand in place. He will definitely feel the need to get up and go running. Because his body is efficient at making available the ingested energy to his muscles, instead of storing it. Of course, if you prevent that person from moving, he will fatten up. But only temporarily, until he is allowed to move again, then he will quickly shed the extra pounds.

Now, if your fat cells are not regulated properly, weird effects could happen. They could store energy and be reticent to release the stored energy. This is where insulin can play a central role. If for some reason insulin stays too high all the time, your fat cells will have a hard time releasing their energy. This is what happens to people who are insulin resistant for instance.

So whatever is deregulating your fat cells could result in them storing energy but not releasing it properly in between meals.

When this happens, there is less energy available for the rest of your cells. You will have to compensate one way or another. You will be hungry faster, so you will eat more often and/or eat more at the next meal.

Your total energy is going up, but you did not start eating more for this to happen, you had to eat more or expand less for this to happen. In this case, the cause of your obesity is not overeating or lack of exercise, it is a deregulated homeostasis.

I hope this explains a bit more our point of view.

So what are your thoughts?

Patrick
Reply With Quote
  #80   ^
Old Sat, Oct-17-09, 07:44
Valtor's Avatar
Valtor Valtor is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,035
 
Plan: VLC 4 days a week
Stats: 337/258/200 Male 6' 1"
BF:
Progress: 58%
Location: Québec, Canada
Default

I'm going to give an example with numbers. I won't include exercise here to keep it simple.

Let's say we have a person in a metabolic ward with a measured BMR that is currently at 2000 calories per day, before they start the experiment. This person eats exactly 1800 calories per day of a low-fat diet (60% carbs, 15% fat, 25% protein).

He eats his first meal of the day.
600 calories total.
400 is taken up by the fat cells to be used in between the next meal.
200 stays in circulation in the blood stream and/or was used for digestion.

Normally when the circulating available energy becomes a bit low, your insulin will also be lower, allowing energy to exit from your fat cells. BUT if this person has a problem with insulin resistance, the insulin levels will stay high longer after the meal and less energy will be able to exit the fat cells.
If non IR: In 5 hours 400 calories will be released from fat cells.
If IR: In 5 hours only 200 calories might be released from fat cells.

For the same time frame depending on your metabolism you might use less energy from your fat cells. Also, if the person is IR they will become hungry earlier than if they were not insulin resistant.

So when the person reaches the second meal.
If non IR: 0 calories from the previous meal is still stored in the fat cells.
If IR: 200 calories from the previous meal is still stored in the fat cells.

Repeat this for all the meals and you come to this.
If non IR: 0 or -200 calories removed from fat cells. His metabolism could have slowed down to match the available energy (1800 calories). So his actual measured BMR at the end of the day would be 1800. No weight change. If his metabolism did not yet adjusted to the lower available energy, an extra 200 calories will have been taken from the fat cells and a small weight loss occurred.

If IR: 400 calories added to fat cells. His metabolism could have slowed down to match the available energy (1200 calories). So his actual measured BMR at the end of the day would be 1200 and weight was gained. If his metabolism did not yet adjusted to the lower available energy, this person will really be hungry now. In the longer period from super to breakfast of the next day, his insulin will have a chance to be lower. So his fat cells might be able to release an extra 400 calories during this time and there was no weight change.

So as you can see with the same numbers you could lose, maintain or even gain weight on the calorie restricted diet. BUT your calorie intake per say had nothing to do with losing or gaining here. It's only the type of calories and/or the way that your body handles the food molecules that had an effect on gaining or losing.

This scenario would be completely different if the person was eating a zero-carb diet (75% fat, 25% protein), maybe in another post.

Patrick

Last edited by Valtor : Sat, Oct-17-09 at 07:50.
Reply With Quote
  #81   ^
Old Sat, Oct-17-09, 08:03
kilton kilton is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 74
 
Plan: My plan
Stats: 150/145/145 Male 6ft
BF:
Progress:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valtor
Ok here we go again. It's not a question of CI/CO being valid are not, it's a question of CI/CO being the CAUSE of excess weight gain or not.

Some in this thread appear to be questioning CI/CO's validity. :-)

I don't disagree with anything you've said. I'm a believer in the general LC/metabolism/insulin theories, and as such I've been eating LC for 2 years for general health purposes. I'm certainly not here to try and be a debunker -- there's a whole crew in the war zone playing that role ad infinitum. All I've been attempting to say in this thread is that none of these things invalidate the fact that weight change or maintenance comes down to CI/CO.
Reply With Quote
  #82   ^
Old Sat, Oct-17-09, 08:16
Valtor's Avatar
Valtor Valtor is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,035
 
Plan: VLC 4 days a week
Stats: 337/258/200 Male 6' 1"
BF:
Progress: 58%
Location: Québec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kilton
...none of these things invalidate the fact that weight change or maintenance comes down to CI/CO.

Yes but since it's our body that decides how much energy it makes you intake and how much energy it will use, then CI/CO is useless as a tool for us. We must instead concentrate on how we can push our metabolism in the right direction, because trying to control our CI/CO consciously will only give us temporary results.

Patrick
Reply With Quote
  #83   ^
Old Sat, Oct-17-09, 08:51
kilton kilton is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 74
 
Plan: My plan
Stats: 150/145/145 Male 6ft
BF:
Progress:
Default

Yep, no argument there -- that's a good way to phrase it.

Remember that what started all of this in the first place was the assertion (which is correct) that weight maintenance means CI=CO. Six pages later, here we are.

Last edited by kilton : Sat, Oct-17-09 at 09:17.
Reply With Quote
  #84   ^
Old Sat, Oct-17-09, 09:09
Wifezilla's Avatar
Wifezilla Wifezilla is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,367
 
Plan: I'm a Barry Girl
Stats: 250/208/190 Female 72
BF:
Progress: 70%
Location: Colorado
Default

Just a few thoughts in the CI=CO debate...

• The human body does not use combustion. Therefore the calorie itself is suspect as a yard stick since a calorie is measured by lighting the food on fire.

• People throw about the laws of thermodynamics all the time when it comes to weight loss. How many of these people actually took thermodynamics in college? Raise your hand. (My hand is up. I got a B or B+....it's been a while).

• If you want to invoke the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy... Calories in = Calories Out), you can't do it while ignoring the second law (entropy... Calories in = Calories Out + ENTROPY)

Here is an example I have given in the past. You have 2 guys (lets say identical twins) with identical cars. The only thing different between the two is you give one man 10 gallons of refined gasoline and the other man 10 gallons of crude oil.

Now they both got 10 gallons of combustible material to use in their cars. Are both of them going to be able to travel the same distance?

Of course not. The 10 gallons guy#2 got will have to be refined. After the refining process, he is not going to have 10 gallons of gasoline.

In this analogy, carbs are the "refined gasoline". Fat and protein are "crude oil". No surprise, no magic in why 10 gallons does not equal 10 gallons.

Last edited by Wifezilla : Sat, Oct-17-09 at 12:45.
Reply With Quote
  #85   ^
Old Sat, Oct-17-09, 11:32
Carne!'s Avatar
Carne! Carne! is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,038
 
Plan: Atkins OWL Rung 4/ IF
Stats: 135/125/115 Female 5'4
BF:19% (approx)
Progress: 50%
Location: MIAMI BEACH
Default

wifezilla that is the best example i have heard. thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #86   ^
Old Sat, Oct-17-09, 17:58
Wyvrn's Avatar
Wyvrn Wyvrn is offline
Dog is my copilot
Posts: 1,448
 
Plan: paleo/lowcarb
Stats: 210/162/145 Female 62in
BF:
Progress: 74%
Location: Olympia, WA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kilton
Some in this thread appear to be questioning CI/CO's validity.
Not it's validity, but it's relevance for weight loss efforts. Might as well say that in order to lose weight, pounds in must be less than pounds out. Sure it's true, but it's not helpful.
Reply With Quote
  #87   ^
Old Sat, Oct-17-09, 18:54
doctorK doctorK is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 126
 
Plan: Zone, IF
Stats: 220/170/160 Male 67 inches
BF:25%
Progress: 83%
Default

Welcome to the Flat Earth Society.

I can't understand why there is so much argument over CO/CI. It's like arguing over gravity. Why did Karen Carpenter die? If you can't lose weight on 1000 calories a day then how did she die? She should have been able to stay fat and sassy on zero calories.

Then I remembered the Flat Earth Society. When I was a kid I read an elaborate report proving that jets and bumblebees can't fly. People who like to argue the absurd find a home in the F.E.S. I think there are members lurking here.
Reply With Quote
  #88   ^
Old Sat, Oct-17-09, 20:40
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Posts: 19,575
 
Plan: ~VLC/~dirty primal
Stats: 520/361/350 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 94%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

As a matter of fact, I like arguing over gravity. I believe the plasma theory of astronomy is vastly more likely to match reality than the fictional equations of the red shift paradigm. ;-)

You chose the totally wrong argument for your perspective there doctorK. Karen Carpenter did not die from being underweight; she was in fact recovered when she died. She died from the damage to her heart muscle sustained while following a low calorie eating plan which all the "calories in, calories out" proponents would assure us are all that is necessary for fat loss, but here's the hitch: while her dietary habits of anorexia were in fact EATING HER ORGANS, she was not however free of all fat cells; as Gary Taubes so nicely exampled at length in his book, you can in fact "low calorie" yourself to actual death prior to losing all the fat people are sure that merely reducing calories will take care of.

In the case of the lovely and talented Karen, she effectively "lost weight." Unfortunately it turns out the "body composition" aspect was not on her side. That is generally the way it goes with low-calorie diets -- she just went overboard with anorexia for a more stark example.
Reply With Quote
  #89   ^
Old Sat, Oct-17-09, 22:42
mike_d's Avatar
mike_d mike_d is offline
Grease is the word!
Posts: 8,362
 
Plan: PSMF/IF
Stats: 236/181/180 Male 72 inches
BF:disappearing!
Progress: 98%
Location: Alamo city, Texas
Default

Cancer patients loose a lot of weight-- even if they eat more and exercise less. It may be due to metabolic increases say experts?

Last edited by mike_d : Sun, Oct-18-09 at 06:33. Reason: wording
Reply With Quote
  #90   ^
Old Sun, Oct-18-09, 13:31
Wifezilla's Avatar
Wifezilla Wifezilla is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,367
 
Plan: I'm a Barry Girl
Stats: 250/208/190 Female 72
BF:
Progress: 70%
Location: Colorado
Default

When considering whether CI=CO, you have to consider if all calories are metabolized by the body the same. Since the answer is a resounding NO, not taking that in to account totally invalidates that convenient little equation. You can't use an equation that leaves out variables and get useful data.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:58.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.