3 ms·

CICO is too simple a model. Satiety is a factor but it’s facile to say fat satiates more so you eat fewer calories. If I understand it correctly that’s not how

CICO is too simple a model. Satiety is a factor but it’s facile to say fat satiates more so you eat fewer calories. If I understand it correctly that’s not how leptin works (satiety hormone). It doesn’t trigger at eg 500 calories regardless of which macro you ate. In reality it’s more nuanced: “It is true that fat has more calories than carbohydrates, including sugar. But by that logic, a sugary beverage is better for you than a handful of nuts. That’s just not what the unbiased studies have shown. Looking only at calories ignores the metabolic effects of each calorie; the source of the calorie changes how you digest it and how you retrieve energy from it.” From https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/theres-no-sugar-coating-it-all-calories-are-not-created-equal-2016110410602 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/theres-no-sugar-coating-...

leshow 7y ago
I wouldnt claim that fat satiation causes someone to eat fewer calories either. But I disagree that the quote you presented somehow claims that a person can lose weight while not being in a deficit. It's physically impossible. That doesn't mean other processes aren't going on, or that you shouldn't consider other things like macronutrients and micronutrients when trying to construct a "healthy" diet.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  It's definitely possible to lose weight without being in a deficit of calories. For example, insufficient protein (or protein precursors like amino acids) can cause the breakdown of muscle, which is denser and weighs more than fat. You'd have to have a sizable excess of calories to have the fat storage to cancel out the loss of muscle mass.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - leshow 7y ago
    I would love for you to show me a study that validates this, I just don't think the effect would be all that significant, especially if you're controlling for calories. Sure, your body comp can change, but I would expect weight to be stable. Feel free to post some pubmed studies if you like.

leshow 7y ago

I wouldnt claim that fat satiation causes someone to eat fewer calories either. But I disagree that the quote you presented somehow claims that a person can lose weight while not being in a deficit. It's physically impossible. That doesn't mean other processes aren't going on, or that you shouldn't consider other things like macronutrients and micronutrients when trying to construct a "healthy" diet.

gamblor956 7y ago
It's definitely possible to lose weight without being in a deficit of calories. For example, insufficient protein (or protein precursors like amino acids) can cause the breakdown of muscle, which is denser and weighs more than fat. You'd have to have a sizable excess of calories to have the fat storage to cancel out the loss of muscle mass.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- leshow 7y ago
  I would love for you to show me a study that validates this, I just don't think the effect would be all that significant, especially if you're controlling for calories. Sure, your body comp can change, but I would expect weight to be stable. Feel free to post some pubmed studies if you like.