What Do You Eat for Weight Loss?

[BRUTE]

Eat 100 calories of carbohydrates and your body uses those 100 for its next few minutes of rock breaking, then it's going to need to get the following calories from body tissue again. If you ate 100 calories of fat, your body would utilize those 100 calories of dietary fat, then continue utilizing body tissue.

this is not how the human body actually works. carbohydrates block lipolysis. so even though the body "needs" to get the following calories from body tissue, it cannot use any body fat. if the same amount of calories are ingested from fat, lipolysis is not blocked, and accessing body fat is easy. this is easily observable when going for a long hike with a mixed group of low-carbers vs. carb eaters. the carb eaters will eat carbs every 30-60 minutes and still complain of starving, whereas the low-carbers won't get hungry all day despite the same workload.

getting energy from body tissues, both lean mass and fat, works via chemical processes that are rate limited. it's not possible to get infinite calories per unit of time. getting energy from lean body mass is especially inefficient, because the protein has to be converted to carbohydrate first. thus humans who are unable to use lipolysis (like the carb-loaders) are constantly hungry. brute is unsure what the rate limit is, but it seems to be substantially below the fat limit. which makes sense, because fat contains 2-3x more energy, and it is already stored in a usable form.

but lipolysis is also rate limited. studies show approximately 30kcal/lbs of body fat/day can be used. meaning that the hypothetical human who needs to cover a 1000kcal deficit, even if he is in ketosis, must have around 33lbs of body fat or more. otherwise, the body won't be able to free enough energy from body fat per unit of time.

IMO, CICO is just a descriptor, not a theory that posits things. So sure, everything that comprises X matters, but I think most people would just say you are increasing the CO side of the equation, nothing to see here. So your example "CI 2000/ CO 2000/ X .9" would just be CI 2000/ CO 2200.

that's why CICO is "not even wrong". it doesn't answer the question.

All ways to reduce CI.

that's a nice narrative. but brute finds it to be not true. a well-tuned human body seems to not store any body fat even if CI is increased, it will simply increase energy available for movement or thinking (there are limits of course, but the 1800kcal/day to 2000kcal/day difference mentioned is easily possible). similarly, the body can easily tune down to a 800-1000kcal energy savings mode. so reducing CI without taking care of the X factor will just reduce CO accordingly, and not result in substantial body recomposition, whereas maintaining energy intake but tuning X would've worked.

now there are certainly humans that are tuned well and are on the margin, for whom CI/CO are good levers. 7Wannabe5 seems to be such a specimen. but brute would believe that these humans are the exception, not the rule, which is why most humans don't report that they can easily regulate their body composition through manipulating what they eat or through exercise.

[herp]

Well done, Augustus!

I'm down just over 5 lbs in a month and a half. Not quite as fast as I was hoping for, but then I haven't kept as high of a calorie deficit as I had hoped.

I try to get cardio in almost every day, but I don't stress if I miss a day a week.

I aim for a 500 kcal deficit, eating three major meals throughout the day and some snacks.

Major challenges seem to be poor sleep, which increases insulin resistance and makes me crave sugar. Additionally, I've noticed that evenings in particular can be challenging. I often end up snacking a bit too much, but I do manage to at least not go above maintenance.

Also, cake is the devil

[Kriegsspiel]

this is not how the human body actually works. carbohydrates block lipolysis. so even though the body "needs" to get the following calories from body tissue, it cannot use any body fat. if the same amount of calories are ingested from fat, lipolysis is not blocked, and accessing body fat is easy.

That was just a gross simplification of the Randle glucose-FFA cycle. If you ate enough carbs to sustain your CO over a period of time, lipolysis will be inhibited. But quantities matter, because the insulin response is related to the amount of blood glucose and generally acts to keep it within 80-120mg/dl.

If the same calories are ingested from fat, at the end of the day you'd essentially have as much fat stored as in the carbs scenario, because while fat usage goes up, you ate a bunch of dietary fat to supply those calories.

this is easily observable when going for a long hike with a mixed group of low-carbers vs. carb eaters. the carb eaters will eat carbs every 30-60 minutes and still complain of starving, whereas the low-carbers won't get hungry all day despite the same workload.

Meh, you're not really observing anything useful. People eating carbs for breakfast can go hiking all day without eating or getting hungry too.

getting energy from body tissues, both lean mass and fat, works via chemical processes that are rate limited. it's not possible to get infinite calories per unit of time. getting energy from lean body mass is especially inefficient, because the protein has to be converted to carbohydrate first. thus humans who are unable to use lipolysis (like the carb-loaders) are constantly hungry. brute is unsure what the rate limit is, but it seems to be substantially below the fat limit. which makes sense, because fat contains 2-3x more energy, and it is already stored in a usable form.

Well, if you're eating carbs, gluconeogenesis is inhibited in addition to lipolysis. Even if you stop, the carbs stored in the liver and muscles are available.

If you are not eating carbs, then you'll start using fat for energy. But eating dietary fat instead doesn't mean you're using tons of bodyfat for fuel, because you're eating all that dietary fat.

a well-tuned human body seems to not store any body fat even if CI is increased, it will simply increase energy available for movement or thinking (there are limits of course, but the 1800kcal/day to 2000kcal/day difference mentioned is easily possible). similarly, the body can easily tune down to a 800-1000kcal energy savings mode. so reducing CI without taking care of the X factor will just reduce CO accordingly, and not result in substantial body recomposition, whereas maintaining energy intake but tuning X would've worked.

Essentially agree.

[BRUTE]

If you are not eating carbs, then you'll start using fat for energy. But eating dietary fat instead doesn't mean you're using tons of bodyfat for fuel, because you're eating all that dietary fat.

point being that while it is possible to measure CI (calories of the nutrients ingested) and CO (calories used up by activity), there are big differences in what happens depending on meal composition, meal timing, the level of hormones in the body, and so on. simplifying to CI/CO misses all these important mechanisms, and potentially leads to a failure in diet adherence or effectiveness that then tends to be explained away by insufficient willpower or accusations of lying.

brute views CICO as similar to the claim "without sex, there is no pregnancy". it's not false, but isn't the most important factor in the problem space (teenage pregnancy), is an intuition trap that falsely leads many humans to abstinence as a strategy or the only strategy, which is not very effective because it oversimplifies the situation, and certain humans tend to wield it as a bash-all-alternatives idea killer with disastrous consequences.

[IlliniDave]

Krispy Kreme donuts (refined) have a lower glycemic load than oatmeal/brown rice/pearled barley/stereotypical unrefined carbs, because they have a lot of fat in them.

The glycemic index of a doughnut is higher than, for example on your list, brown rice, by ~30-40% (I didn't look up the others, but it's 108 for a doughnut versus 79 for brown rice). The load depends on respective serving sizes but it is at least comparable I suspect. Fat is insulin-neutral so irrespective of coincidental fat ingestion the usual processes force the body to respond to a doughnut-driven blood sugar surge (which would be higher than a brown rice-driven blood sugar surge if carb calories were normalized) with insulin to shuttle the excess blood glucose into fat. More importantly, the glycemic index of a Krispy Kreme is an order of magnitude higher than the glycemic index of non-grain/starchy carbohydrate sources (e.g., brocolli, peppers, tomatoes, greens, green beans, grapefruit, etc. - my choice for "stereotypical" unrefined carbs). Those grains you list are all things I avoid or moderate severely in the interest of weight maintenance or reduction (though barley is pretty low, just not something I think about buying), especially as I make my way though my sixth decade--different story when I was under 30. No doubt they are superior to KKs, but as a group they still wreak havoc on me.

[jacob]

Somehow this entire thread strikes me a long debate (1.5+ years by now?) as to whether it's possible to conveniently change the p-factor (or X-factor) by changing one's diet and eating oneself into a better/healthier/hotter(*) body...

... all while ignoring changing the quantity and quality of one's activity level which just might impact the p-factor significantly more!?

(*) Synonyms in my book, but I digress/troll while ignoring nuances that I am aware off

http://earlyretirementextreme.com/the-p ... n-bod.html (click first link in post)

[Bankai]

@ Jacob

In my experience (not personal as I never had weight issues, but looking at friends/family/people at work etc.) it's way easier to "eat" oneself into healthier weight/body than it is to obtain similar results by exercising. I know people who went from overweight to "ideal" weight (lower end of healthy BMI range) within 1 year or less by diet alone (and still maintain it years later). I don't know anyone who achieved anything close to this by exercise alone. Obviously, combining both diet and exercise is optimal. However, if someone is eating too much and wrong things, no (reasonable) amount of exercise/activity is going to help. The fatter, more sedentary and less healthy the person is, the less likely he is to start (and keep) exercising because it's simply too difficult. And trying and failing all the time because one is too fat/weak isn't the best way to build confidence. Changing diet is so much simpler and effects are seen so much faster. This, in turn, builds self-confidence and increases chances of success.

[7Wannabe5]

When we put a nuanced view of evolutionary theory back into nutrition and health, we end up with the following observations:
-If we do not exercise or make an attempt to be physically active, then we are much more vulnerable to chronic diseases, regardless of food choices; conversely, if we exercise or are sufficiently physically active, then we can avoid chronic diseases while eating liberally. This is because humans evolved in a context of constant movement and moderate physical activity; sitting for prolonged periods was extremely rare, because that would have led to starvation or the loss of opportunities to socialize and, therefore, reproduce.

- To get a balance of nutrients, we should eat traditional cuisines, the older the better (for example, from five hundred years ago), because traditional cuisines were carefully pieced together through trial and error. Focusing on nutrients is often a fool's errand. For example, eating less meat and fat can be harmful if we end up craving sugary food instead. Traditional cuisines get around this problem by offering balanced, tasty meals. For people who trace their ancestry to a specific region of the world, the traditional cuisine from that region is likely best suited for their genes.

- Eating a lot of animal foods when you are younger will make you grow taller and stronger and be more fertile and attractive but will increase your risk of dying earlier. As we discussed, this trade-off between robustness in early life and poorer longer-term health is exactly what we should expect from an evolutionary perspective, because evolution is only concerned with the passing on of genes to the next generation, at whatever cost necessary to the current generation- poorer long-term health being such a cost.

-"100 Million Years of Food: What Our Ancestors Ate and Why It Matters Today"- Stephen Le

The interesting take-home I derived from this book, and a couple other recent books on semi-related topics, I have read lately, is that in addition to not being able to alter your genetic make-up, you also can't "fix" poor nutritional choices that you made ( or often those that were made for you) in utero, prior to puberty, or early adulthood by even stupendous efforts that give the appearance of superior fitness or super-human adherence to very limited dietary regime when you are middle-aged. For instance, if you are a female, being chubby at age 9 can contribute to early onset of puberty which can knock 5 or 6 years of your life expectation, and if you are a male, your blood pressure at age 30 is much better correlated to possibility of heart attack at age 60 than your BMI at age 55. We optimists like to believe in agency, but in this realm, it seems to be the case that much of the most recent research is pointing towards less rather than more we can do past a point. Also, many practices may be more trade-off than pure good. For instance, exposure to sunlight may promote sun cancer and wrinkles, but lack of exposure, inclusive of overuse of sunblock, may contribute to depression, obesity, and variety of other Vitamin D deficiency disorders that can not be appropriately addressed by addition of supplements due to digestive issues.

The other interesting take-away I got from this book is that extreme-not-sitting is more likely to prevent obesity/maintain healthy weight than engaging in brief vigorous exercise. IOW, retire early and thereby free yourself up engage in moderate activity most of the day-8 miles of walking plus handicrafts* (inclusive of high calorie brain burning challenging mental activities ) and cook yourself a good deal of frugal peasant food, and that might be about the best prescription you can write for yourself.

*Activities that link brain with use of hands creatively diminish depression. Also you can't eat Krispy Kreme donuts and knit a complex sweater at the same time.

[Kriegsspiel]

BRUTE, tracking calories doesn't have to mean you aren't doing other stuff like you mentioned. You don't have to miss anything.

IlliniDave, yea that was wrong. I guess I should have noticed it looked fishy, but I'd been quaffing shine. But GI aside, AFAIK eating the carbs with other stuff slows gastric emptying and insulin response. Either way eating donuts is dumb if you're trying to lose fat.

[BRUTE]

Somehow this entire thread strikes me a long debate [...] all while ignoring changing the quantity and quality of one's activity level which just might impact the p-factor significantly more!?

Dear Leader jacob has been struck incorrectly by this debate then. maybe it is because the debate was focused on eating from the beginning, but many activities (and levels thereof) have been experimented with by brute. but not even the most strenuous activity levels (kickboxing 2x per day, 5x per week, for a month) has had nearly the effect that even a moderately ketogenic diet or a 5 day fast has had. fun, though.

[BRUTE]

BRUTE, tracking calories doesn't have to mean you aren't doing other stuff like you mentioned. You don't have to miss anything.

if tracking calories is useless and has a non-zero cost, why would brute do it?

[Kriegsspiel]

That was a generic you.

[BRUTE]

if tracking calories is useless and has a non-zero cost, why would anyone do it?

[IlliniDave]

jacob, it is anecdotal, but I have observations similar to Bankai above. Making up an analogy, I would offer than nutrition optimization is akin skill diversification and expense lowering, and intense exercise akin to a high income in a FIRE context. Both together are optimal in most circumstances.

Another way I tend to look at it (pardon the hyperbole for the sake of illustration): if your eating habits require you to train like a world-class triathlete just to stave off obesity, then probably your eating habits could stand some adjusting. Of course, if being a triathlete ranks high on your priority list anyway then it is not such a big deal perhaps.

[IlliniDave]

But GI aside, AFAIK eating the carbs with other stuff slows gastric emptying and insulin response. Either way eating donuts is dumb if you're trying to lose fat.

Yeah, my original mention of KK was meant to be humorous. It is protein that counteracts insulin surges rather than fat, I believe. And I may very well be genetically deficient, but getting my daily slug of carbs via foods from which they are released slowly (along with a somewhat lower proportion of carbs in my overall intake than standard recommendations) makes a stark difference. I can't really talk about successful nutrition for myself without low GI carb sources being the foundation of it.

[7Wannabe5]

Another way I tend to look at it (pardon the hyperbole for the sake of illustration): if your eating habits require you to train like a world-class triathlete just to stave off obesity, then probably your eating habits could stand some adjusting. Of course, if being a triathlete ranks high on your priority list anyway then it is not such a big deal perhaps.

Elite athletes, when compared to cohorts in general population, average 2.9 year increase in longevity. Therefore, if the training lifetime of elite athlete= 30 years and the training work-week of elite athlete is 10 hours greater than average, every hour spent in training translates into just 1 more waking hour of life. IOW, if you enjoy a vigorous workout followed by a raw spinach shake just as much as you enjoy an afternoon engaged in moderate garden work followed by a bowl of spicy tomato fish chowder and a small slice of homemade apple pie with sour cream layer, then that might be a good trade-off, otherwise maybe not so much.

if tracking calories is useless and has a non-zero cost, why would anyone do it?

Because they really like homemade apple pie with sour cream layer. IOW, same reason why some people prefer to not practice total abstention from anything. No different than trying to figure out how you can get some version of every luxury you desire on very small financial budget, rather than just convincing yourself that you don't like those things. Maybe kind of like how you budget some of your overall risk pool for motorcycling.

[IlliniDave]

IOW, if you enjoy a vigorous workout followed by a raw spinach shake just as much as you enjoy an afternoon engaged in moderate garden work followed by a bowl of spicy tomato fish chowder and a small slice of homemade apple pie with sour cream layer, then that might be a good trade-off, otherwise maybe not so much.

That's all true, I'm only addressing the subject question not advocating lifestyles. I find a 20-30 lb difference in body weight (down from my peak weights as an adult) can make a big difference in how enjoyable nearly everything is, including items inherent to a generally moderate-to-low intensity active lifestyle. Gaming my nutrition allows me to maintain a comfortable weight that enhances overall quality of life without adding in the need to beat myself up trying to keep up with 25-year-olds in a Crossfit gym. The cost is that I don't get to eat as much pie as I would like. But nothing is free.

[Kriegsspiel]

if tracking calories is useless and has a non-zero cost, why would anyone do it?

If it was useless, than everyone should agree with you that nobody should do it. But it's not useless.

Yeah, my original mention of KK was meant to be humorous. It is protein that counteracts insulin surges rather than fat, I believe.

Yea I get that, it was fun to think about anyways. As for protein with carbs, when I was reading up on it it looked like it can increase insulin response more than carbs or protein alone. Protein stimulates insulin without raising blood sugar, probably part of why it is so satiating.

[IlliniDave]

Protein's effect on blood glucose is so low/slow they can't even measure a GI for it, and whatever glucose the liver ultimately produces from it is pretty small. It supposedly allows for the low levels of insulin necessary for building lean tissue but I thought it was offset or swamped by glucagon (protein stimulated hormone that gives body go-ahead to release stored energy). If after eating a double burger/supersize fries/supersize Coke meal there is some interaction when insulin is forced high that throws that balance out of whack, well, all the more reason for people like me to stick to the bottom quartile of the GI chart!

[BRUTE]

if tracking calories is useless and has a non-zero cost, why would anyone do it?

Because they really like homemade apple pie with sour cream layer.

brute does not see how this follows. brute's entire argument is the idea that CICO is worse at exactly this than numerous alternatives like fasting or low-carb. unless a human really enjoys counting calories for its own sake (web of goal to the rescue?), it's not the best method to achieve this goal for the majority of humans.

If it was useless, than everyone should agree with you that nobody should do it. But it's not useless.

arguments welcome