5 ms·

I think this is not so surprising, given that the calories are not restricted in the study. High carb, low fat foods I think are not satiating relative to low c

I think this is not so surprising, given that the calories are not restricted in the study. High carb, low fat foods I think are not satiating relative to low carb, high fat foods. As an example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36051903/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36051903/ Any type of caloric restriction will improve health outcomes.

user3939382 4y ago
Weight isn't the product of calories in vs out, that's an overly simplistic model that doesn't account for the effect of hormones on how we metabolize different compounds and nutrients. This area of nutrition science is nascent and unsettled, and fraught with research funded by parties with conflicts of interest, but here's for example a pretty good talk that discusses some of the research https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKC3hiyLeRc&t=159s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKC3hiyLeRc&t=159s
- algoatecorn 4y ago
  It's simple enough to be useful and applied. If you continue to reduce your calorie intake, you will lose weight. This is a fact. Build a model to explain weight gain/loss and calorie intake will always be the most influential variable full stop
  - rhinoceraptor 4y ago
    This is like saying the way to become financially successful, is to simply earn more money than you spend. These two explanations are correct, but not particularly helpful, because they are tautologies.
    - soco 4y ago
      True they're not particularly helpful, but the commenter was arguing against their truthfulness.
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    You're correct with the caveat that the system is not totally static so TDEE tends to decline as the body endures deficits. Therefore it "appears" that CICO is broken... its not, it's just that to keep a static deficit over time you have to eat fewer and fewer calories.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
    Is it actually simple enough to be useful? We’ve known this for decades and it hasn’t slimmed anyone down statistically. What precisely is it useful for? Because it isn’t useful in losing weight… people simply aren’t losing.
    - algoatecorn 4y ago
      Total BS. We've known if for forever and the reason "people simply aren't losing" is because they aren't doing a good job of counting. Go ask a fighter, wrestler, runner, or bodybuilder how they manage body weight. They don't do it by tossing a coin into the wishing well, I can tell you that.
      - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
        Dude I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, I’m asking what is it useful for in a statistically significant manner. I’m not really interested in some outlier professional fighters or whatever have to say about it. What fat person doesn’t know CICO is real? You don’t think they’ve heard it a million times? Yet statistically we’re only getting fatter. Trying the same stuff expecting different results is stupid, and yet we’re telling every fatty out there CICO, millions of them, for decades, with nothing to show at a population level. This is stupid. Thus I’m questioning what CICO is useful for beyond some academic, theoretical sense. Actual applications. Because the application ain’t applying.
- Beaver117 4y ago
  Here comes the CICO cult to lynch you. They never seem to understand that your body regulates its CO by reducing/increasing movement and NEAT, so how can you really measure it?
  - algoatecorn 4y ago
    Maybe you can't consciously manipulate NEAT, but you can control movement. You are literally saying that we can choose to move more in order to offset over-consumption, which is true. NEAT holds a different level of influence based on the individual. Adjust to it or pick an average percent and move on. This appeal to "CICO is oversimplification" is a distraction and excuse.
    - Beaver117 4y ago
      NEAT holds a different level of influence every single day, maybe even hour, based on your body's supply of energy, hormones, and other unknown stuff. Have you ever been extremely fidgety while people next to you are completely still? You would have been burning at least 2x the calories they were in that time. Basically, its simple and accurate to measure calories in. But almost impossible to measure calories out. So TDEE actually shifts by a couple hundred calories every day. That's small but not insignificant, and explains why some people end up quite underweight and others quite overweight, even if they eat the same foods (over a long period of time).
      - algoatecorn 4y ago
        I'm am quite aware of how TDEE and NEAT work, but they average out in the long run. If you choose to give little credence to CICO, then so be it. I've spent the past decade in various sports which require different bodyweights and body comps, successfully going up and down as needed. I know it works, and it's not unique to me. For some reason I never have these arguments with other athletes. I wonder why
        Beaver117 4y ago
- ablatt89 4y ago
  I don't think that YouTube cites any sources that show there's scenarios where metabolism is significantly different for net weight and other health outcomes, when it comes to low fat vs low carbohydrate diets. There might be some genetic disorders causing some pathway to be inhibited, but on average, if we want to give generic advice for every individual, I think it's best to say to reduce calories and choose the appropriate method that satisfies your lifestyle and allows you to adhere to the diet, to improve your health. I don't think it's sustainable to do a keto diet if you live and partake in society. You might encounter many scenarios where food options are carb heavy, and in this case, keto is not an option whereas caloric restriction is.
- edanm 4y ago
  I used to be very interested in the speaker (Jason Fung) too. But after getting much more interested in nutrition over the last few years, I now think he is someone to avoid. He is basically outside of the scientific mainstream, and continually says things that are just not supported by actual studies. And there have been many studies on this. Weight is a product of calories in vs out, both in the trivial sense (conservation of energy), but also in the sense that if you control the amount of calories you eat, and keep it below your calories out, you will lose weight. It's true that calculating your actual calories out is basically impossible, but you can estimate it, and then just reduce more calories if you're not losing weight. This has been proven multiple times in real experiments with real subjects. This is agreed on by basically everyone who's actually in the field. There is also ample anecdotal evidence that this is true (every athlete, bodybuilder, etc that wants to gain or lose weight can do so basically at will, on a set schedule they plan months in advance. It's almost precise and very scientific.)
  - user3939382 4y ago
    > just not supported by actual studies If you take the time to watch the talk I linked to (I understand if not, it's pretty long) he spends a substantial amount of time citing and discussing studies. He's not just throwing out a bunch of unsubstantiated theories. As non-scientific anecdotes go, I've confirmed this myself. I went on keto and absolutely did not reduce my calories, actually I increased them, but severely cut carbs / sugar and I lost 5 notches off my belt in 3 months. > just not supported by actual studies Here's the second result on PubMed for last year published "ketogenic weight" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36012064/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36012064/ Ketogenic Diet Benefits to Weight Loss, Glycemic Control, and Lipid Profiles in Overweight Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trails > "A ketogenic diet, characterized by low calories with high levels of fat, adequate levels of protein, and low levels of carbohydrates, has beneficial effects on body weight control in overweight patients." I wouldn't say it's case closed, this area of nutrition science needs many years of additional research, but to say flatly that studies don't support the hormone model of weight gain isn't correct.
    - 4y ago

user3939382 4y ago

Weight isn't the product of calories in vs out, that's an overly simplistic model that doesn't account for the effect of hormones on how we metabolize different compounds and nutrients. This area of nutrition science is nascent and unsettled, and fraught with research funded by parties with conflicts of interest, but here's for example a pretty good talk that discusses some of the research https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKC3hiyLeRc&t=159s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKC3hiyLeRc&t=159s

algoatecorn 4y ago
It's simple enough to be useful and applied. If you continue to reduce your calorie intake, you will lose weight. This is a fact. Build a model to explain weight gain/loss and calorie intake will always be the most influential variable full stop
- rhinoceraptor 4y ago
  This is like saying the way to become financially successful, is to simply earn more money than you spend. These two explanations are correct, but not particularly helpful, because they are tautologies.
  - soco 4y ago
    True they're not particularly helpful, but the commenter was arguing against their truthfulness.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  You're correct with the caveat that the system is not totally static so TDEE tends to decline as the body endures deficits. Therefore it "appears" that CICO is broken... its not, it's just that to keep a static deficit over time you have to eat fewer and fewer calories.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  Is it actually simple enough to be useful? We’ve known this for decades and it hasn’t slimmed anyone down statistically. What precisely is it useful for? Because it isn’t useful in losing weight… people simply aren’t losing.
  - algoatecorn 4y ago
    Total BS. We've known if for forever and the reason "people simply aren't losing" is because they aren't doing a good job of counting. Go ask a fighter, wrestler, runner, or bodybuilder how they manage body weight. They don't do it by tossing a coin into the wishing well, I can tell you that.
    - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
      Dude I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, I’m asking what is it useful for in a statistically significant manner. I’m not really interested in some outlier professional fighters or whatever have to say about it. What fat person doesn’t know CICO is real? You don’t think they’ve heard it a million times? Yet statistically we’re only getting fatter. Trying the same stuff expecting different results is stupid, and yet we’re telling every fatty out there CICO, millions of them, for decades, with nothing to show at a population level. This is stupid. Thus I’m questioning what CICO is useful for beyond some academic, theoretical sense. Actual applications. Because the application ain’t applying.
Beaver117 4y ago
Here comes the CICO cult to lynch you. They never seem to understand that your body regulates its CO by reducing/increasing movement and NEAT, so how can you really measure it?
- algoatecorn 4y ago
  Maybe you can't consciously manipulate NEAT, but you can control movement. You are literally saying that we can choose to move more in order to offset over-consumption, which is true. NEAT holds a different level of influence based on the individual. Adjust to it or pick an average percent and move on. This appeal to "CICO is oversimplification" is a distraction and excuse.
  - Beaver117 4y ago
    NEAT holds a different level of influence every single day, maybe even hour, based on your body's supply of energy, hormones, and other unknown stuff. Have you ever been extremely fidgety while people next to you are completely still? You would have been burning at least 2x the calories they were in that time. Basically, its simple and accurate to measure calories in. But almost impossible to measure calories out. So TDEE actually shifts by a couple hundred calories every day. That's small but not insignificant, and explains why some people end up quite underweight and others quite overweight, even if they eat the same foods (over a long period of time).
    - algoatecorn 4y ago
      I'm am quite aware of how TDEE and NEAT work, but they average out in the long run. If you choose to give little credence to CICO, then so be it. I've spent the past decade in various sports which require different bodyweights and body comps, successfully going up and down as needed. I know it works, and it's not unique to me. For some reason I never have these arguments with other athletes. I wonder why
      - Beaver117 4y ago
ablatt89 4y ago
I don't think that YouTube cites any sources that show there's scenarios where metabolism is significantly different for net weight and other health outcomes, when it comes to low fat vs low carbohydrate diets. There might be some genetic disorders causing some pathway to be inhibited, but on average, if we want to give generic advice for every individual, I think it's best to say to reduce calories and choose the appropriate method that satisfies your lifestyle and allows you to adhere to the diet, to improve your health. I don't think it's sustainable to do a keto diet if you live and partake in society. You might encounter many scenarios where food options are carb heavy, and in this case, keto is not an option whereas caloric restriction is.
edanm 4y ago
I used to be very interested in the speaker (Jason Fung) too. But after getting much more interested in nutrition over the last few years, I now think he is someone to avoid. He is basically outside of the scientific mainstream, and continually says things that are just not supported by actual studies. And there have been many studies on this. Weight is a product of calories in vs out, both in the trivial sense (conservation of energy), but also in the sense that if you control the amount of calories you eat, and keep it below your calories out, you will lose weight. It's true that calculating your actual calories out is basically impossible, but you can estimate it, and then just reduce more calories if you're not losing weight. This has been proven multiple times in real experiments with real subjects. This is agreed on by basically everyone who's actually in the field. There is also ample anecdotal evidence that this is true (every athlete, bodybuilder, etc that wants to gain or lose weight can do so basically at will, on a set schedule they plan months in advance. It's almost precise and very scientific.)
- user3939382 4y ago
  > just not supported by actual studies If you take the time to watch the talk I linked to (I understand if not, it's pretty long) he spends a substantial amount of time citing and discussing studies. He's not just throwing out a bunch of unsubstantiated theories. As non-scientific anecdotes go, I've confirmed this myself. I went on keto and absolutely did not reduce my calories, actually I increased them, but severely cut carbs / sugar and I lost 5 notches off my belt in 3 months. > just not supported by actual studies Here's the second result on PubMed for last year published "ketogenic weight" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36012064/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36012064/ Ketogenic Diet Benefits to Weight Loss, Glycemic Control, and Lipid Profiles in Overweight Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trails > "A ketogenic diet, characterized by low calories with high levels of fat, adequate levels of protein, and low levels of carbohydrates, has beneficial effects on body weight control in overweight patients." I wouldn't say it's case closed, this area of nutrition science needs many years of additional research, but to say flatly that studies don't support the hormone model of weight gain isn't correct.
  - 4y ago