The Truth about "Calories"

[tubby]

Man - ya'll got an awful lot of time to kill...................... whole thing is TL;DR. T(damned)L;(Def)DR.

ymmv - LOL

Thank you for your valuable contribution to the discourse in this thread.

 

[lessthanhalf]

I do not think it is entirely true that you cannot get estimates of the CO part of CICO. But you need weight change to see it. Weight loss is easily measured , and from my original weight loss was a very consistent 6 kg per month. 6 x 7700kcal/kilo of fat is 46200kcal/month deficit or about 1540 kcal/day, with an intake of about 1600kcal/day. This is only that high as at a weight of 145kg the extra mass consumes extra calories, and I think you generally have a fairly high energy expenditure in an overweight overfed state, or at least that is the best explanation I have for using up over 3000 kcal/day while more or less totally inactive, lying down 23 plus hours per day. Interestingly once I had lost quite a bit of weight and got more active I never saw a change in energy expenditure measured by weight loss rates from going from zero activity to walking 3 hours per day.

 

[tubby]

I do not think it is entirely true that you cannot get estimates of the CO part of CICO. But you need weight change to see it. Weight loss is easily measured , and from my original weight loss was a very consistent 6 kg per month. 6 x 7700kcal/kilo of fat is 46200kcal/month deficit or about 1540 kcal/day, with an intake of about 1600kcal/day. This is only that high as at a weight of 145kg the extra mass consumes extra calories, and I think you generally have a fairly high energy expenditure in an overweight overfed state, or at least that is the best explanation I have for using up over 3000 kcal/day while more or less totally inactive, lying down 23 plus hours per day. Interestingly once I had lost quite a bit of weight and got more active I never saw a change in energy expenditure measured by weight loss rates from going from zero activity to walking 3 hours per day.

Isn't that pretty much the same thing I said in my response to you 12 hours ago?

Without sophisticated equipment to try to estimate it, calories out becomes a derived quantity. One can calculate your average calories out for the last month, but they can't directly measure it. They would do that by tracking calories in for the last month, comparing that against weight lost, and then using that to infer what average calories out must have been.

Edit: Maybe the way I phrased it could have been confusing since I used "estimate" and derived" to make the distinction and those could be ambiguous. The point I was trying to make there was that sophisticated equipment could directly measure it, but it would still be an estimate at best, since that equipment is going to include imprecise measurements. I was contrasting that approach (a direct measurement) VS solving for it via algebra, in which case calories out is never measured directly, but inferred from other values that you know (and the assumption that the CICO model is valid). Looking back I could have phrased that more precisely than I did and that's my bad.

 

[tubby]

Interestingly once I had lost quite a bit of weight and got more active I never saw a change in energy expenditure measured by weight loss rates from going from zero activity to walking 3 hours per day.

That matches my experience too. Pre-GLP adding exercise didn't really move the needle for me. I mean I'm sure it made some difference, but it was negligible relative to dietary changes at the time.

The calories people would probably say that CO went up during exercise, but the subject either ate more (due to increased pressure from hunger hormone effects) or CO was reduced during other parts of the day, reducing the overall increase in CO when measured over a full day.

 

[tubby]

Also, here are some references for those curious about the specific study claims I made in the OP and one of the replies:

This study demonstrated that the use of a glucagon suppressing drug was able to break the vicious cycle in type 1 diabetic rats, bringing them back to normal blood sugar levels without requiring insulin injections:

An orally available compound suppresses glucagon hypersecretion and normalizes hyperglycemia in type 1 diabetes - PubMed

Suppression of glucagon hypersecretion can normalize hyperglycemia during type 1 diabetes (T1D). Activating erythropoietin-producing human hepatocellular receptor type-A4 (EphA4) on α cells reduced glucagon hypersecretion from dispersed α cells and T1D islets from both human donor and mouse...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This article covers a the rat feeding experiment I mentioned above (the GLP group lost more weight than another group that received no GLP but was calorie matched to the GLP group):

https://uncertaintyprinciples.suspi...n-pair-feeding-in-mice-free-feeding-in-humans

This study is the ground squirrel one I was referring to where they modified the diets of the squirrels to vary the composition of the fat in the diet. If you read the results section you'll see that the squirrels that were fed more of the omega-6 (and less of the other fats) gained more weight and then went on to successfully hibernate. Meanwhile, the groups that were fed less omega-6 (and more of the other fats) either completely failed to enter hibernation or quickly exited hibernation. This supports that idea that different fats will have different metabolic impacts in mammals that consume them:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236821460_The_Influence_of_Dietary_Fatty_Acids_on_Hibernation_by_Golden-Mantled_Ground_Squirrels_Spermophilus_lateralis

 

[wellhellothere]

Ok can you tell me what this actually means for someone trying to lose weight? Do or do not judge the food based off the calorie count? Eating whole foods only? What foods are good calories vs bad I guess is what I'm asking

 

[tubby]

Ok can you tell me what this actually means for someone trying to lose weight? Do or do not judge the food based off the calorie count? Eating whole foods only? What foods are good calories vs bad I guess is what I'm asking

The OP itself isn't really "advice" and doesn't tell you how you could lose weight. It's just explaining why the strong push for the "calories" approach is far from scientific and has a far shakier foundation than is commonly understood. Like I think most people understand that the horoscope in the newspaper shouldn't be taken as serious life guidance, but many of those same people mistakenly believe that losing weight is a simple calorie counting exercise because that's what gets repeated by medical and nutritional authorities.

I can't tell you what particular dietary approach would work or would work best for you. They all come with different pros and cons and some work better than others for some people. GLPs are highly effective (and you're here) so that is probably your most productive approach. If you want to explore different dietary approaches, the best advice I can give you is to explore the different major communities online and spend a little time immersing yourself in each. Perhaps try each one on for size for a month or two and see how it treats you. You could even try the "calories" approach if you want to, but that's a pretty hard one to maintain success with, absent a GLP.

 

[Hotlongs]

Ok can you tell me what this actually means for someone trying to lose weight? Do or do not judge the food based off the calorie count? Eating whole foods only? What foods are good calories vs bad I guess is what I'm asking

Look at the calories of nuts if you want to get a sense of how useless cico can be. Nuts contain up to 26% fewer calories than we thought they did according to research that highlights the actual energy (kcal/kJ) absorbed.

Fiber also affects the absorption rates.