4 ms·

This is bro science. Sorry dude. Caloric intake matter because in the end it is CICO. However, there are foods that absolutely make you feel full quicker and fo

This is bro science. Sorry dude. Caloric intake matter because in the end it is CICO. However, there are foods that absolutely make you feel full quicker and for a longer period of time and that matters as much as calories because if you can't fight off the hunger because your diet is primarily white bread and doritos as opposed to healthy fats , greens, and proteins then calories won't matter because you will 100% fail because of cravings.

diordiderot 4y ago
It could be much much more than CICO. If you want to read an epic saga on modern obesity and it's theories check out https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-part-i-mysteries/ https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-p...
- trentgreene 4y ago
  It seems like everything in that article reinforces CICO. Is there something that diverges from the CICO model that I might be missing? E.G. it’s examples of the Maasai and Inuit eating higher calories make a lot of sense when you consider their exposure to temp extremes and additional cal burn coming from thermoregulation (along with probably elevated levels of daily activity). Most of the nuance I’ve seen around CICO that holds isn’t that CICO isn’t true, it’s that the intake and output are hard to calculate when you look at nutrient absorption and lifestyle
  - nikkwong 4y ago
    CICO may be scientifically valid but it's useless in practical terms. People who tend to be constipated absorb much more energy from their food and those with fast digestive tracts absorb much less. Everyone is somewhere on that spectrum, so, from person to person, you would never have a practical way to assess what the CI or the CO is in the CICO model.
    - trentgreene 4y ago
      Au contraire, it's very useful. If you want someone to lose weight, calculate their BMR + their rough activity based cal burn, and give 'em a 15% deficit. They'll lose weight. Not just water and glycogen. They will burn fat. If you want someone to gain weight, do the same calc, tell 'em to eat 100 more calories. Not gaining? 200. Really not gaining? Wow, fast metabolism, shock 'em with 500 extra. Anecdata, but the only time I saw someone not slowly gain on 200 extra, there ended up being a lot of walking we weren't accounting for in our maintenance cal calculation. Our O in CICO was off. For reference, 200 cals is like a 16 oz of coke, or 2-3 apples. Decently precise. The variance between a fast and slow metabolizer isn't 20% of daily calorie burn, maybe 10% on the high end. Guesstimation, probably more like 5%. Well within the tolerances that are used for weight modulation (up or down). If it weren't the case, why are so many body builders (natty or enhanced) able to run repeated bulking and cutting cycles? Are they genetic outliers? Can you calculate it 100%? Nope -- so many variables, probably tons we don't even know about yet. But it's accurate enough to be very effective, and very simple to implement.
      - nikkwong 4y ago
        Mark Pimentel's lab which studies disorders of the gut has hypothesized that people with extremely slow transit times can absorb 2-3x the amount of energy from food in comparison to people with regular transit times. I think there is a high amount of variability; and importantly in the context of losing weight, people who are overweight often have slow intestinal transit due to their dysregulated gut microflora. I'm sort of with you, but it sounds more to me like: start eating less, and you'll lose weight; eat more, and you'll gain weight. There's just too many variables here that change how food is metabolized and digested; including the microbiome which CICO ignores.
        trentgreene 4y ago
        You got a source for that study? A cursory google didn’t reveal anything and 2-3x is suspect. To your second point, wouldn’t the microbiome (and slow digestion) just be another input into CICO?
        4y ago
jsiaajdsdaa 4y ago
>this is bro science sorry, I don't care
toast0 4y ago
CICO is axiomatically true, but the problem is CI is easy to measure and CO isn't. Different people use different amounts of calories to do the same things (including sitting around), and different people extract different amount of calories from the input. Some people can extract calories from PF Chang or Buca di Beppo, but not me. Weight control by eating foods that go straight through sounds terrible though.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
imtringued 4y ago
The problem is that the body and brain operate a complex control loop whose sole purpose is to regulate calories in and calories out. You can run an additional control loop mentally but what purpose does that serve? Reducing caloric intake while your body screams increase caloric intake is very difficult. You should instead use the control loop you already have.

diordiderot 4y ago

It could be much much more than CICO. If you want to read an epic saga on modern obesity and it's theories check out https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-part-i-mysteries/ https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-p...

trentgreene 4y ago
It seems like everything in that article reinforces CICO. Is there something that diverges from the CICO model that I might be missing? E.G. it’s examples of the Maasai and Inuit eating higher calories make a lot of sense when you consider their exposure to temp extremes and additional cal burn coming from thermoregulation (along with probably elevated levels of daily activity). Most of the nuance I’ve seen around CICO that holds isn’t that CICO isn’t true, it’s that the intake and output are hard to calculate when you look at nutrient absorption and lifestyle
- nikkwong 4y ago
  CICO may be scientifically valid but it's useless in practical terms. People who tend to be constipated absorb much more energy from their food and those with fast digestive tracts absorb much less. Everyone is somewhere on that spectrum, so, from person to person, you would never have a practical way to assess what the CI or the CO is in the CICO model.
  - trentgreene 4y ago
    Au contraire, it's very useful. If you want someone to lose weight, calculate their BMR + their rough activity based cal burn, and give 'em a 15% deficit. They'll lose weight. Not just water and glycogen. They will burn fat. If you want someone to gain weight, do the same calc, tell 'em to eat 100 more calories. Not gaining? 200. Really not gaining? Wow, fast metabolism, shock 'em with 500 extra. Anecdata, but the only time I saw someone not slowly gain on 200 extra, there ended up being a lot of walking we weren't accounting for in our maintenance cal calculation. Our O in CICO was off. For reference, 200 cals is like a 16 oz of coke, or 2-3 apples. Decently precise. The variance between a fast and slow metabolizer isn't 20% of daily calorie burn, maybe 10% on the high end. Guesstimation, probably more like 5%. Well within the tolerances that are used for weight modulation (up or down). If it weren't the case, why are so many body builders (natty or enhanced) able to run repeated bulking and cutting cycles? Are they genetic outliers? Can you calculate it 100%? Nope -- so many variables, probably tons we don't even know about yet. But it's accurate enough to be very effective, and very simple to implement.
    - nikkwong 4y ago
      Mark Pimentel's lab which studies disorders of the gut has hypothesized that people with extremely slow transit times can absorb 2-3x the amount of energy from food in comparison to people with regular transit times. I think there is a high amount of variability; and importantly in the context of losing weight, people who are overweight often have slow intestinal transit due to their dysregulated gut microflora. I'm sort of with you, but it sounds more to me like: start eating less, and you'll lose weight; eat more, and you'll gain weight. There's just too many variables here that change how food is metabolized and digested; including the microbiome which CICO ignores.
      - trentgreene 4y ago
        You got a source for that study? A cursory google didn’t reveal anything and 2-3x is suspect. To your second point, wouldn’t the microbiome (and slow digestion) just be another input into CICO?
      - 4y ago

jsiaajdsdaa 4y ago

>this is bro science sorry, I don't care

toast0 4y ago

CICO is axiomatically true, but the problem is CI is easy to measure and CO isn't. Different people use different amounts of calories to do the same things (including sitting around), and different people extract different amount of calories from the input. Some people can extract calories from PF Chang or Buca di Beppo, but not me. Weight control by eating foods that go straight through sounds terrible though.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

imtringued 4y ago

The problem is that the body and brain operate a complex control loop whose sole purpose is to regulate calories in and calories out. You can run an additional control loop mentally but what purpose does that serve? Reducing caloric intake while your body screams increase caloric intake is very difficult. You should instead use the control loop you already have.