Calories in Calories out is a myth

This is mostly geared toward obesity, I'm not too sure about bulking. To my understanding if you are bulking the intermittent fast still works. If you're having no problem staying lean than your insulin levels are at a very healthy homeostatic state. Just eat more during your meals and you should be good to go.

so keto and cico doesn't work in the long term and fasting does?

>We'll try again another day.

Please don't.

Of course calories in, calories out works. It can't possibly NOT work, or it would violate the laws of physics. Insulin (or the lack thereof) is simply the mechanism your body uses to make it work.

To a point. (disclaimer: I am doing 16/8 IF myself.). It still doesn't break CICO. It's just a way to "game the system" a little bit, so that your weight loss is actually a little closer to "recomping".

Yes but its not as simple as cutting calories and losing weight AND being successful. The twinky meme has spread a terrible understanding that it doesn't matter what you eat, just eat less. I care about the fatties lurking, wanting to better themselves. When you tell them to eat less and exercise it works for a while and then once they weight is gone they rebound and fail. Then we blame them for not having any willpower when their bodies are going through hell. This science deserves attention.

Legit scientific article up for peer reviewal, when?

Are you saying I should write one, lol? I've only taken 2 years of Body Systems, Medical Terminology and A&P classes. Not to mention I got a C+ in English 111. I hardly think I could write a scientific article.

You sound like an excited telemarketer trying to peddle something, reasoning by emotions rather than logic.

And you yourself admitted that "On a very technical level; yes, calories in calories out.", but in the title it says that it's a myth.

Like come on man, if you're gonna troll, do it properly. And if you're serious, do it properly as well, you might find a lot of people that are willing to argue with you all day long which probably what you want.

I mean, just for the sake of it, let me deconstruct your sentences.

>His argument is that insulin and insulin resistance are the enemy in terms of obese and he takes a “hard fast” into intermittent fasting approach.

I love IF myself, but not because of any sort of benefit to fat loss, but because it allows me to have a big meal a day where I can feel full. I've done the same calorie diet before, just instead of having 1-2 meals I had 4-5. I lost the exact same weight, obviously calculating my new TDEE and so on.

There was absolutely no difference weight wise what I achieved. It was more the mental improvement of that big meal a day, but from a central point of weight loss, it didn't do a thing. Sure, this is as good as broscience, but you are kinda doing the same thing, preaching what 1 guy is saying as if it's the cure-all.

>There are a lot of fat people out there cutting calories and starving themselves to death.
A proper diet is simply reducing your calories, if you are starving at any point, it is not sustainable, which means it's the mentality that you have to starve yourself that is at fault, not the calories.

>They have been set up to fail, the failure rate is astounding and it is the wrong approach.
I agree, starving should not be how it's done.

Continuing in the next one

>Sure you will lose the weight but you won’t keep it off and you will rebound to an even fatter state.
This is a mental problem, habits to be precise, if you do not change your habits to better habits, you will always just go back to whatever you were before. No matter what approach you take, if you do not change your habits and thinking, you will fall back. The diet itself has nothing to do with it by itself.

>Just ask any of “The Biggest Loser” contestants.
Again, they starve them. Starving is the worst as it mentally the worst as it links pain to diet, which means after they are not required to do it anymore, they will ignore it like the plague.

>Dr. Fung suggests a fasting period to deprive your body of insulin thus reducing your insulin resistance (or tolerance if you prefer) levels, switching to a fat heavy (or protein), low carb diet, and maintaining an intermittent fast thereafter.

Like said before, I love IF for it's benefits. But I have yet to see any difference in my weight loss since switching to it a few months ago. I feel better due to it's mental benefits, but I am losing the exact amount of calories as I have calculated, no matter what insulin does or does not.

So yeah, it's a great tool for weight loss, but please do not make it seem like what everyone is missing in their lives, you sound like a jehova's witness.

I appreciate your criticisms and will take them into account. I'm monitoring for your continuation but I might as well respond to this in the meantime.

Yes the subject is a tad baity, its not entirely a myth. Its more of a misunderstanding. I'm arguing that CICO should not be the primary consideration in a weight loss diet. Instead monitoring insulin and insulin resistance should be the primary consideration.

>There are a lot of fat people out there cutting calories and starving themselves to death.
Yes I'm appealing to emotion, yes its a hyperbole. Its simply to reinforce the point. I can see why you don't like it.

I've been doing calories in/calories out for months and IF for about 2 weeks and it's working for me. I haven't been keeping track of macros at all.

Daily reminder that fructose is the underlying factor of all health problems the western countries face.

>This is a mental problem, habits to be precise
The only habit and willpower involved are in the diet. When you only take calorie deficit into account you don't reach the real problem. Your body still need tremendous amounts of food to create insulin because you haven't treated the underlying problem: insulin sensitive. Yes its possible to brute force, but there is a better way.

>Again, they starve them.
It is the same model, though. I do see your point.

>you sound like a jehova's witness.
Well I certainly don't want to come off as that. I'm very passionate about this science. I find it intriguing and I feel Dr. Fung's research deserves more attention. I welcome contradicting arguments. At the end of the day we're here to learn about fitness and get healthier.

The problem I see with not having CICO a main part of your diet is simple.

Imagine your body burns 2000 calories each day.
>Every day you do IF, so you have a big meal for lunch and a big meal for dinner, within an 8 hour window.
>After 4 weeks, you've actually gained weight!
>Why is it not working
>CICO would show that you were actually eating 3000 calories each day in those 2 big meals
>Yes, let's say the whole insulin thing works as intended
>Did it matter at all?

Those 1000 calories would mostly be stored as fat. Did this diet that was focusing on insulin even gain anything from doing so?

Or would it be better to focus on CICO and do fasting as a side thing that might improve things?

>Rebound to certain weight

Insulin isn't fucking magic - and Glucolysis occurs at a fast enough rate that you don't starve.

Insulin just causes uptake of glucose into cells to increase - even if the body was unresponsive to it, blood glucose would just remain at a high concentration - which doesn't actually pose any problems aside from its harmful affects on water potential.

For fuck's sake - if you're going to try and bullshit about biochemistry atleast learn a basic amount before going "ZOMG, ULTIMATE RED PILL ON X" like every other retard on this chan every fucking week.

Fat asian teaching how to eat. Yeah right. How about go to japan or china, and ask a slim person what they eat on a daily basis

I do appreciate your non-confronting way of handling criticism and I understand why you'd be passionate about it.

>The only habit and willpower involved are in the diet. When you only take calorie deficit into account you don't reach the real problem.
Thing is, this is more making it easier for you to handle whatever calorie deficit you are going through.

I simply mean, it's a good tool for helping you achieve weight loss, but on it's own, ignoring CICO and so on, nothing will happen.

>Those 1000 calories would mostly be stored as fat.
That's what you would expect under the fundamental understanding of thermodynamics and CICO. Which is why the model fails. Those 1000 calories actually are burned off through mostly thermoregulation of the body (heat) WHEN your insulin levels are healthy.

I appreciate the debate. I can see why you didn't find the argument welcoming. It was mainly the subject line. I will definitely change it, but it does work wonders for gaining attention to the threads. You are 100% correct in saying you can't ignore CICO, but you can fine tune your machine and make it run a hell of a lot smoother. I don't understand all the sciences and I will get it from all angles but this is a learning process.

No. Just fuck off.

Do you know how much energy 1000kcal is?!

You can't shrug off an amount like that as 'thermoregulation'.

Thermoregulation doesn't even fucking work like that. Look up vasodilation and vasoconstriction - it doesn't use up much energy.

want something to fuck with your head

you can eat 1kg of anything and before taking a dump your scale weight will have increased by more than 1kg

I know some of the hambeasts may be as large as a black hole, they still can't break the laws of physics like them. Insulin sensitivity is just going to affect your TDEE but not buy retarded amounts.

Just your vital organs by themselves consume 50-60% of your total RMR. It doesn't even sound remotely plausible that the same amount is used for regulating heat.

Key word is mostly. Its also burnt off by exercising and brain function. This means you'll think sharper and exercise better. Which means more gains.

Yes, but the amount is negligible. In order to burn off 1000 calories you'd need to have a very long and very intense workout. It's nothing to scuff about.

Your vital organs also do most of what is necessary for life to continue - what's your fucking point? It's incomparable.

You just said it was burnt off via thermoregulation - not exercising, and not brain function.

You jsut said the TDEE was 2000 - leaving 1000 excess Kcal - implying 1000 excess, devoid of exercise or brain function.

Do fuck off.

More Kcal doesn't = more gains

Limited amounts of muscle sythesis can occur - adding an excess of energy doesn't fucking dismiss this fact.

Brain function isn't magically aided by eating more - also, it's included in TDEE.

Again, I said mostly thermoregulation.

You're probably right, maybe half gets burnt off and half is stored as fat which is a hell of a lot easier to deal with than 1:1 CICO.

Thermoregulation doesn't consume 1000kcal - it consume very little energy.

Dr. Fung seems to be adamant that when your insulin levels are healthy your body deals with the excess energy very efficiently and through mainly thermoregulation. I'm going to rewatch that part so I can better understand what he was getting at.

Insulin causes the excess energy to be storred as fast via Glycogenesis - that's healthy fucking insulin for you.

Not having healthy insulin means it's retained in the blood as glucose - which causes health problems because of its affects upon the water potential of blood.

For fuck's sake do some indepedent research.

Stored as fat*

The problem here is that you're taking whatever a video is saying as gospel, without necessarily having tested it yourself.

In my experience, it's not even close to a noteworthy effect in increasing weight loss.

Does that make me right? No.
Is this whole precep right because it's one person saying it's right? No.

Unless we have studies done for this, it's all speculations and throwing things at each other.

Just do whatever you feel is best and you think will get you to stay at the level of fitness you want. Some people do it with keto, some with IF, some with a standard diet, some with a frutty luppy diet that their aunt told them. If it works for them, let them do it and be glad that they made it work for them.

Do it bigboi

Look, let me give you a simplified runthrough of how blood glucose is managed.

Once blood glucose increases, insulin is secreted into the blood. It binds to the Glycoproteins of cells, doing various actions - increasing the uptake of glucose into the cells and also increasing the rate at which glucose is converted into glycogen.

Once blood glucose falls - Glucagon is secreted, causing blood glucose to rise via increasing rate of Glycolysis - conversion to glycogen to glucose - and the rate at which gluconeogenesis occurs.

Intermittent Fasting is a great thing, right, but it's not a magical diet that makes weight loss so much faster.

You don't regain weight because your insulin levels are out of whack, at least normally - because a measure of energy is a measure of energy - a large amount of energy i.e. Fat can't be created from nothing, it has to have a initial source - eating 2000kcal @ a TDEE of 2000 won't cause weight loss even with shit insulin - because it would be broken down and used even if it was stored as fat.

No need to be insulting, you'll only reinforce the cognitive dissonance of those you're arguing with. You guys really love to test the temperament but its ok, I'm here to learn.

Insulin, in general, is the hormone responsible for fat storage, yes? When your insulin is homeostatic at a certain set point of weight than your cells will be taking the glycogen in, if there is excess it will not matter, the door is open so to speak. The calories are mainly burned not through thermoregulation of vasodilation/constriction rather the heating of organs, which takes a tremendous amount of energy. I continue to stand by this although it does deserve more attention.

Also, and this is not entirely relevant, he did talk about swimming. Most of the calories burnt from swimming are not from the exercise but from cooling the body off and then warming it back up.

>You don't regain weight because your insulin levels are out of whack.
Yes, this is exactly the argument. Your cells insulin sensitivity has not been retrained. They are still resistant which means you'll still need a shitload of insulin to satisfy them which means lots of ghrelin will be produced to make you hungry as all hell to compensate. You will also feel like shit throughout this. Yes you can brute force it but you don't need to by retraining your insulin sensitivity by depriving the cells of insulin for long periods of time.

This is me right now, where are all the people that were helping me last thread??

youtube.com/watch?v=2cjv7hEAytU

I'm going to fucking maul you.

Insulin merely increases the amount of glucose channel proteins in the cell's membrane - the rate of uptake increases to a point variable with the blood glucose rise, which means the amount of channel proteins also falls when the blood glucose level falls.

"The door is open so to speak" - that's a fucking terrible analogy.

The rate of uptake increases, yes - but not to point where all of the blood glucose over the set point is taken in.

Insulin isn't homeostatic at a set point - that phrase doesn't fucking make sense for one, and variable amounts of insulin are released at differering blood glucose concerntations.

Swimming, doesn't use a shit on of energy for heating as water is a fucking great insulator because of its high specific heat capacity. Most of the energy in swimming is used for contraction of muscle.

Heating of organs - there's no mechanism that acts to heat organs - heat is released in ineffiency of reactions - such as loss of energy in the form of heat in Oxidative Phosphorylation.

Insulin sensitivty can be regained through any fucking low carb diet. I.F. isn't a fucking divine technique sent to you by the Gods.

>Insulin isn't homeostatic at a set point
Yeah, it is.

>Swimming, doesn't use a shit on of energy for heating as water is a fucking great insulator because of its high specific heat capacity.
If its an insulator and you're exercising wouldn't that create even more heat? That doesn't sound too "fucking great".

>Heating of organs - there's no mechanism that acts to heat organs.
Strawman, that's not the argument. The organ's are heated, and the body in general, nevertheless.

>Insulin sensitivty can be regained through any fucking low carb diet.
Yes it can, and even faster when the cells are deprived of insulin entirely.

> I.F. isn't a fucking divine technique sent to you by the Gods.
This is debatable. Pic related.

Insulin isn't deprived in a fasting state though.

Glucagon and Insulin act antagonistically - with blood glucose concentraiton falling b/c of limited intake, causing glucagon secretion, causing blood glucose to rise, causing insulin secretion, and the cycle fucking continues.

Your cells aren't ever completely derived of insulin.

Any thread that starts with "daily reminder" is clearly a shitpost, I don't know why anyone even replies to them anymore

No it is not.
But yeah Insuline and actually even more leptin are also Important.
I only watched the first video and it was full of false relations and correlations which is why I can't really take him serious. For clarification...
One small Example, he bases most of his Arguments on the "the biggest loser" study (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27136388).
1. I would not base anything on something with only fucking 14 participants, this is not reprasentative nor is it a "scientific study" .
2. If you look deeper they used their own formula to calculate the fattys starting maintance calories, which is way off from any other formular. If you use any established formular you get way lower results. Also, it should be considered that it must be even lower considering that they are obese.
2.1 your maintance calories will most of the times always be lower after a cut, because you lost mass. Less mass = less energy needed.
3. According to the "study" they all gained back weight. But the majority of them is still 20kg below their starting weight. Fattys obviously didn't change their lifestyles after the Show and just went on like before it.
4. A few participants could actually keep their weight, unsurprisingly these are the ones who kept exercising after the study and changed their lifestyle.

That makes sense. Thanks. Any idea how that would fit into the model? I'm getting pretty tired.

Wouldn't the glucagon storage deplete after a certain amount of time fasting?

Glucagon is the hormone.

But yeah, Glycogen storage falls over the time fasting - it's released in the blood and used in metabolic reactions, and more is hydrolysed to replace the lowered concentration.

As an addon.
I do 8/16 if myself.
But pls read Alan aragons and lyle McDonald Reviews on leptin, Insuline and fasting.
This is much more reliable and scientific than this Dr. Fung guy.
There is not much Magic behind this stuff.

Hydrolysed from what? If there's no food intake to raise blood glucose levels?

I'm painfully novice at this stuff, I do need to do more research, don't feel obligated.

So, in the liver cell Glycogen is hydrolysed into Glucose via glucogenesis - this is stimulated via Glucagon secretion.

Food intake isn't necessary to raise blood glucose levels.

Glucagon secretion causes an 'overshoot' of glucose released into blood (i.e. Positive Feedback), causing insulin secretion to get it back to set point (Negative feed back) - this is still a gain of glucose though - because it's from a point below the set point

TLDR
stop eating sugar

Thanks for this, Its going to take me a minute to DIGEST IT, god I'm sorry.

More insulin = harder to burn fat = lower BMR

As an example your maintenance would go from 2000 to 1700. That means you need to work harder to lose the same amount of weight. He isn't debating calorie counting, his goal is to find out *why* it is harder to lose weight after sustained dieting, or why we "plateau"

Go fuck yourself, you psuedo scientific chink.