Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Scaly Freak said:

resume the ice cream diet

 

You have reminded me of part of my next challenge. Thank you.

 

1 hour ago, Scaly Freak said:

In other news, in our most recent grocery order, I had included three kinds of ice cream. One of them was out of stock, and for reasons I cannot for the life of me fathom, the store removed the other two from our order as well. When we unpacked the order, there was no sign of ice cream anywhere. To say that I am displeased is a massive under statement.

 

That is awful. Truly terrible. That was the important part of the order.

 

Even though I was sort of reluctantly backed into getting my grocery deliveries from Target by a mix of proximity and cost and whatever... dang, is the customer service of their delivery company good. I'm convinced they've done something smart in giving the delivery driver a personal shopper role, rather than splitting it between a store employee and a delivery person. It's such a good delivery experience.

  • Like 2

I felt like I could run forever, like I could smell the wind and feel the grass under my feet, and just run forever.

Current Challenge: #24 - Mrs. Cosmopolite Challenge

Past: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6,  #7#8, #9#10, #11a & #11b, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23

Link to post
1 hour ago, Tanktimus the Encourager said:

Good for you. I'm interested to hear how this affects your energy level and mood.

 

Me too, bro. But it's weird to put food in my mouth this often. So much food, oh my god.

 

sesame street eating GIF by PBS KIDS

  • Like 4

I felt like I could run forever, like I could smell the wind and feel the grass under my feet, and just run forever.

Current Challenge: #24 - Mrs. Cosmopolite Challenge

Past: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6,  #7#8, #9#10, #11a & #11b, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23

Link to post
4 hours ago, sarakingdom said:

 

I have eaten a second meal. This feels wrong, somehow. Two meals a day? In less than six hours? Is this how it works?

 

 

I know this is gonna blow your mind, but you could even have a third, or even a fourth. Most would call it there.

 

However, if you're more skilled/evolved and you're looking to build a good Dad bod, you might need to add on a fifth after you hit the weights.

 

10 hours ago, sarakingdom said:

 

It was an excellent attempt. I was very tired at the right time. There was some lab tech error, though, I believe, so we should probably rerun the experiment.

 

Blood Sleep, experimental trial no. 2:

 

200.gif

 

tenor.gif

 

[Redacted by the editor for depictions of risky biohazard management, explicit penetration, and no actual blood.]

 

fcuSXlThS6vduMATVh_Rf7U0kEzBEblACcHNbpdY

Level 3, Rebel

Currtent Challenge
Previously known as: Curl Brogo, Darwins_Demon, Vincent Van Bro

2020 Respawn Battle Log || Tarly's Ten Level Nutrition Plan

My Fitness Pal Profile || NF Epic Quest Character Page || Instagram

Weight Loss Quest: Start 270 lbs., Goal 199 lbs., Current 270 lbs., Waist: ,45.0 in., Bodyfat%: 33%

 

Link to post
29 minutes ago, Stronkey Kong said:

I know this is gonna blow your mind, but you could even have a third, or even a fourth. Most would call it there.

 

WHAT IS THIS MADNESS. FOOD DOES NOT GROW ON TREES, YOU KNOW.

 

30 minutes ago, Stronkey Kong said:

However, if you're more skilled/evolved and you're looking to build a good Dad bod, you might need to add on a fifth after you hit the weights.

 

Me and eating is an "it's complicated". I don't lose weight by undereating, my body stops doing post-workout repairs instead. I don't necessarily lose weight by eating tons, but the only times I have are when I hit the right macros and was eating tons. (More than I would naturally have eaten, to be honest.) So I apparently have a very narrow range of conditions where my body is willing to drop weight. None of them seems to be undereating, though. (And since IF is a good thing for me, this is awful, because I not only have to eat a stupid number of meals, but I have to do it within four hours. That's okay if I'm used to eating, I guess.)

  • Like 3

I felt like I could run forever, like I could smell the wind and feel the grass under my feet, and just run forever.

Current Challenge: #24 - Mrs. Cosmopolite Challenge

Past: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6,  #7#8, #9#10, #11a & #11b, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23

Link to post

Yay for batch cooking!

 

Okay, this sound crazy and I'm sure you have already tried it. Since you know IF works for you and you can't be trusted to notice when you are hungry, Could you just schedule meals? Maybe call it a system replentishment break. Think of it as a necessary blood sugar adjustment to let you do more things later.

  • Like 1

Level 55  Viking paladin

My current challenge    Battle log 

Link to post

 

3 hours ago, sarakingdom said:

Even though I was sort of reluctantly backed into getting my grocery deliveries from Target by a mix of proximity and cost and whatever... dang, is the customer service of their delivery company good. I'm convinced they've done something smart in giving the delivery driver a personal shopper role, rather than splitting it between a store employee and a delivery person. It's such a good delivery experience.

 

Interesting. I may need to look into this.

Book Riot Challenge 2021

“I've always believed that failure is non-existent. What is failure? You go to the end of the season, then you lose the Super Bowl. Is that failing? To most people, maybe. But when you're picking apart why you failed, and now you're learning from that, then is that really failing? I don't think so." - Kobe Bryant, 1978-2020. Rest in peace, great warrior.

Personal Challenges, a.k.a.The Saga of Scaly Freak: Tutorial; Ch 1; Ch 2; Ch 3; Ch 4; Ch 5; Ch 6; Intermission; Intermission II; Ch 7; Ch 8; Ch 9; Ch 10; Ch 11; Ch 12 ; Ch 13; Ch 14Ch 15; Ch 16; Ch 17; Intermission IIICh 18; Ch 19; Ch 20; Ch 21; Ch 22; Ch 23; Ch 24; Ch 25; Intermission IV; Ch 26; Ch 27; Ch 28; Ch 29

Link to post
7 hours ago, sarakingdom said:

I have eaten a second meal. This feels wrong, somehow. Two meals a day? In less than six hours? Is this how it works?

 

Yes, this is how many people do it. I eat three meals, possibly a snack, and many cups of tea between the hours of 7am and 6pm. My body lets me know every few hours that it desires food.

 

3 hours ago, sarakingdom said:

Me and eating is an "it's complicated". I don't lose weight by undereating, my body stops doing post-workout repairs instead. I don't necessarily lose weight by eating tons, but the only times I have are when I hit the right macros and was eating tons. (More than I would naturally have eaten, to be honest.) So I apparently have a very narrow range of conditions where my body is willing to drop weight. None of them seems to be undereating, though. (And since IF is a good thing for me, this is awful, because I not only have to eat a stupid number of meals, but I have to do it within four hours. That's okay if I'm used to eating, I guess.)

 

Seems like it might be worth counting again and trying to find maintenance for now?

 

3 hours ago, Mistr said:

Okay, this sound crazy and I'm sure you have already tried it. Since you know IF works for you and you can't be trusted to notice when you are hungry, Could you just schedule meals? Maybe call it a system replentishment break. Think of it as a necessary blood sugar adjustment to let you do more things later.

 

Agreed. If it is not too burdensome, reminders could help. Having enough fuel for post workout repairs is important, and worth taking a little trouble over.

Let cheese and bread and mead crowd out our secret desires for power and domination.

Link to post
3 hours ago, Mistr said:

Okay, this sound crazy and I'm sure you have already tried it. Since you know IF works for you and you can't be trusted to notice when you are hungry, Could you just schedule meals? Maybe call it a system replentishment break. Think of it as a necessary blood sugar adjustment to let you do more things later.

 

I have no idea if I've tried it, cuz schedules are not an ADHD forte.  :D This is part of the problem  with keeping up IF for me, though not the major one. The major one is that I occasionally hit patches where that sort of meal spacing is not good for brain weasels. Admittedly, there might be undereating involved. I don't know.

 

I do generally try to eat the normal three parts of the day, but my personal sense of when morning, noon, and evening are is very... slippy.

 

2 hours ago, Scaly Freak said:

Interesting. I may need to look into this.

 

I don't want to oversell them, but I found them an upgrade over other delivery services, and cheaper per delivery due to an annual subscription model. How it basically goes:

 

Spoiler

 

This got long.

  • One-hour delivery windows, very rarely missed. Good communication if this happens.
  • Groceries can be delivered in 1-2 hours from the time of order, or any other time of day or night the stores are open. This means it's practically easier for me to order frozen pizza and a bagged salad for dinner than to order out.
  • You place your order. You can make changes online up to an hour before the delivery time.
  • An hour before delivery time, your shopper texts you to introduce themselves and ask you to let them know if you need anything that's not in your order.
  • If something isn't in stock, they text you for what you'd like them to do about it, and usually snap you a photo of what's on the shelf. (Very occasionally, they'll make a replacement on their own; it's happened once or twice in two years. Always pretty close. But usually, there are no surprises about what's missing and what's ben substituted.)
  • I once had a shopper let me know the fruit I asked for was I  stock, but didn't look great that week. Another let me know the best-by date on the last package left was that day, and wanted to make sure that was okay. I've also been noticing some of my chicken orders lately are showing up with detached "Special - $5 off today" coupons, so a fair number of them are paying attention to extra discounts they can get you.
  • I once, for a December 23rd delivery to someone else with their present in it, had a shopper who, not finding the sweater I ordered, looked on her own to find something in a similar style and the right size, and sent me a picture to suggest it. And it was a great choice. She also, at delivery, texted me a picture of the house it was delivered to before she left, which I requested because I was not there and GPS was a bit wonky in that part of town.
  • My membership is good anywhere in the country near a Target. I've done a few deliveries halfway across the country when home for the holidays.
  • You can buy anything in the store, not just groceries. I mean, I wouldn't get too wild in the furniture section, but some clothes or storage bins or an Instant Pot or  like, a gift for that party you forgot about tonight, sure.
  • They text when they're about to leave the store. Usually both before checkout for last minute changes and when leaving, though sometimes only the latter. They text you again when arriving.
  • They will do their best to deliver to your door even in apartment buildings, or whatever request you make for it. I can never remember my building door code, so I'm not sure how they get in, but I've had a fair number of contactless drops to my door. They will give you bags, help you carry, loan you grocery handcarts.
  • When the delivery is done, you rate and tip in the app. Straightforward.
  • They're almost always masked. Basically, there's one dude.
  • Apart from the good communication protocols they're being given to use, they've all been super friendly in all their communication. Like, it's just really kind, helpful customer service.
  • This might be offered to everyone, but free two-day shipping on non-perishable things by mail with a certain minimum. Basically, Amazon Pantry for Target, but also including everything else they sell.
  • While I have ambivalent feelings about the gig economy, when covid hit, I was happy to support it. People needed those jobs more than I needed to have labor ethics concerns, it was safer for fewer people to be in the stores, and I was out essentially no money in spreading work and tips, and gained at least two hours of time. Geeze, it's cheaper for me to get a delivery than to take public transit to the store myself. Once I work in store pricing and discounts and stuff, I think that includes the tip. It's pretty close, at least.

The only subpar things I've experienced, over two years:

  • One annoying chick who wanted me to be her GPS.
  • About four times, I've had my delivery rescheduled for the next slot. Two of those times, this meant till the first morning slot, because I was in the last slot of the day. They auto-reschedule for that next slot if no drivers are available for your order, but you can change the rescheduling to any other available time. To me, this isn't really subpar, but an understandable occasional side effect of the system. It's rare, and doesn't bother me. Except being up at 8am on a Sunday that one time, but whatever.
  • One time, total radio silence followed by a message that my order had been delivered, and it clearly had not been. I was cranky about that. Turned out the guy entered his phone number wrong when he signed up, so he was uncontactable and shut out of their messaging system. No idea where he delivered that shit, and it was annoying, but it was easy to sort out. Out of over a hundred deliveries and easily sorted, okay. In the end, a minor inconvenience to me.

 

 

I mean, I want to feel bad about exploiting the gig economy and giving so much money to a big box store, but my local grocery chain is no mom and pop, either, and, like... that delivery service, man. I genuinely would spend more going to my local store myself. They're practically paying me to have concierge grocery service.

 

1 hour ago, Harriet said:

My body lets me know every few hours that it desires food.

 

Wild. Really wild. Mine sometimes let's me know I haven't eaten in 20 hours.

 

This is actually something else I found out about undereating. It changes what hunger feels like. A lot of times, you stop feeling physical hunger, and it becomes a subtle psychological thing. At certain deficits, I rarely notice it. It's like all hunger signals go quiet most of the time. At a 50% deficit, you start to really see what the brain is doing. I don't really feel physical stomach hunger unless I'm eating at a maintenancey level, which is to say, more than I do by instinct.

 

1 hour ago, Harriet said:

Seems like it might be worth counting again and trying to find maintenance for now?

 

Well, they're all maintenance, I guess. But being in the vicinity of my calculated TDEE seems to work differently, yeah. Probably worth checking to see if I'm in the vicinity.

  • Like 1

I felt like I could run forever, like I could smell the wind and feel the grass under my feet, and just run forever.

Current Challenge: #24 - Mrs. Cosmopolite Challenge

Past: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6,  #7#8, #9#10, #11a & #11b, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23

Link to post
20 minutes ago, sarakingdom said:

This is actually something else I found out about undereating. It changes what hunger feels like. A lot of times, you stop feeling physical hunger, and it becomes a subtle psychological thing. At certain deficits, I rarely notice it. It's like all hunger signals go quiet most of the time. At a 50% deficit, you start to really see what the brain is doing. I don't really feel physical stomach hunger unless I'm eating at a maintenancey level, which is to say, more than I do by instinct.

 

So chronic undereating impairs hunger, but eating an appropriate amount can restore it? I guess the question is, do you want your hunger back?

 

20 minutes ago, sarakingdom said:

Well, they're all maintenance, I guess. But being in the vicinity of my calculated TDEE seems to work differently, yeah. Probably worth checking to see if I'm in the vicinity.


Sorry, I meant find your maximum maintenance--the most you can eat without gaining. Because if you maintain the same weight at a wide range of calories, then the difference is coming from functions other than your weight, no? So wouldn't it be beneficial to eat at the highest calories you can without gaining weight, since the extra (over your lowest maintenance number) would presumably go for energy and repair? Just a thought.

Let cheese and bread and mead crowd out our secret desires for power and domination.

Link to post
7 minutes ago, Harriet said:

So chronic undereating impairs hunger, but eating an appropriate amount can restore it? I guess the question is, do you want your hunger back?

 

It seems healthier to, to be honest. It seems subpar to have the body shutting down its messaging because it isn't getting enough food. Also, IMO, I think the weird psychological hunger of undereating is maybe not the underpinning of a healthy psychological relationship with food, at the extremes at least.

 

11 minutes ago, Harriet said:

Sorry, I meant find your maximum maintenance--the most you can eat without gaining. Because if you maintain the same weight at a wide range of calories, then the difference is coming from functions other than your weight, no? So wouldn't it be beneficial to eat at the highest calories you can without gaining weight, since the extra (over your lowest maintenance number) would presumably go for energy and repair? Just a thought.

 

Yeah, I'm entirely on board with shorthanding that as maintenance, cuz what else can we call it. :) When I say it's all maintenance, that's everything down to 50% of the calories I need, which is where I tap out for health reasons. But that's not a useful range discussion, so I usually use it for either that max, or the approximate calculated TDEE, which, honestly, I haven't tried exceeding, and maybe should test.

 

I truly don't know if there's a mechanism for the body to detect food insecurity, or if that's anecdotal "science", and I suspect the latter. But I do know there's a decent sized weight loss community that goes by the philosophy that you should find that maximum by edging upwards until you see weight creep, eating at that maximum as a reset to undo the damage of undereating, then go just a hair under it while doing heavy lifting. For them, it works. And while I never strictly followed their plan, I was so lost about what to do with the bizarre idea that I wasn't even eating enough to meet my theoretical BMR that I did their reset period, and that was the period I got most predictable weight changes. I added IF to that maintenance level, no deficit, and was losing two pounds a week for a couple of months. (Which was ridiculous, man. I was eating 20% more food than I thought was maintenance, and suddenly losing at a fairly brisk clip.)

  • Like 1

I felt like I could run forever, like I could smell the wind and feel the grass under my feet, and just run forever.

Current Challenge: #24 - Mrs. Cosmopolite Challenge

Past: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6,  #7#8, #9#10, #11a & #11b, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23

Link to post
5 minutes ago, sarakingdom said:

 

It seems healthier to, to be honest. It seems subpar to have the body shutting down its messaging because it isn't getting enough food. Also, IMO, I think the weird psychological hunger of undereating is maybe not the underpinning of a healthy psychological relationship with food, at the extremes at least.

 

True. Those psychological reactions to long term food shortage can be really difficult to overcome.

 

5 minutes ago, sarakingdom said:

I truly don't know if there's a mechanism for the body to detect food insecurity, or if that's anecdotal "science", and I suspect the latter. But I do know there's a decent sized weight loss community that goes by the philosophy that you should find that maximum by edging upwards until you see weight creep, eating at that maximum as a reset to undo the damage of undereating, then go just a hair under it while doing heavy lifting. For them, it works. And while I never strictly followed their plan, I was so lost about what to do with the bizarre idea that I wasn't even eating enough to meet my theoretical BMR that I did their reset period, and that was the period I got most predictable weight changes. I added IF to that maintenance level, no deficit, and was losing two pounds a week for a couple of months. (Which was ridiculous, man. I was eating 20% more food than I thought was maintenance, and suddenly losing at a fairly brisk clip.)

 

If you weren't losing weight, I don't think you can have been eating under your BMR, since by definition it is the amount needed to maintain your weight at rest. It is very difficult to know what to do with that experience without adequate data, though. I think it would be worth tracking calories for a while to get some data, if you care about these things (you definitely don't have to care about these things) and if it doesn't trigger any disordered behaviour/thoughts/feelings.

 

I don't know about "detecting" food insecurity but the body has sophisticated and redundant mechanisms to ensure adequate energy, and it will respond differently to different energy inputs. If I understand it right, your body can do things like drastically reducing or increasing NEAT in order to bring down its calorie requirements or make use of excess calories, but it cannot make energy out of nothing, and it cannot fail to do something with excess energy (gotta use it or store it). So if you maintain your weight both at 1500 and at 2000 calories (for example), then the 500 calories is adding to, or taking away from, some energy-requiring function other than weight stores, right? I presume you want to have as much energy and function as you can without adding to your weight stores (I am assuming we want to be comfy medium weights for various reasons), so it makes sense to eat at your maximum TDEE. That's my line of reasoning, anyway, but it's all very complex and I'm not a scientist.

Let cheese and bread and mead crowd out our secret desires for power and domination.

Link to post
19 minutes ago, Harriet said:

I don't think you can have been eating under your BMR, since by definition it is the amount needed to maintain your weight at rest.

 

That's not a useful concept when the body can decrease metabolic activity in response to low calories, and we can’t quantify that reduction. It has to mean "of optimal intake", or it means nothing. Particularly when what I'm saying is that, in six months and with six 10% calorie level reductions held for a month each, measured to the gram and normalised for all exercise (I'm a scientist, I do data collection), I never hit hit a low value where I don't maintain. At the lowest value, I was hobbling for three days after a trivial 40 minute hike because next to zero physical repair was happening, but my weight was steady at the same place it had been six months before. My body will literally damage itself before dropping weight at low calories, and you're going to have a hard time convincing me that's a meaningful usage of eating at my BMR.

 

You're also going to hit real issues with that usage outside of just me, because in practice, BMR and TDEE are both used to refer to calculated reference targets.

 

20 minutes ago, Harriet said:

and it cannot fail to do something with excess energy (gotta use it or store it).

 

Humans can excrete nearly anything else they have too much of, so why do we assume that's not an option under the right conditions? In the context of the hormonal theory of weight loss, I've seen discussion of a trial that called this highly into question by giving people 5000 calories a day instead of 2000 without significant weight changes, along with discussion of how humans are not closed systems and applying the thermodynamics principles of closed systems to them is a fundamental mistake, so citation needed. I'm not unwilling to believe it, but I need more evidence.

 

And that evidence is the problem. It can't be proven. We say it must be true, because we assume the theory is accurate. But we're unable to actually measure, so we cannot know. It's circular reasoning that we do not possess the technology to prove or disprove. There is clearly some approximate correlation, but the range of behaviors and outcomes is not well modeled, well predicted, or statistically influenceable, and that is terrible medical science. A lot of the attempts to balance the current equations begin by presuming the theory is true, so there must be something making up for the difference, which then proves the theory is true, and they are far from the most convincing arguments for it.

 

42 minutes ago, Harriet said:

I don't know about "detecting" food insecurity but the body has sophisticated and redundant mechanisms to ensure adequate energy, and it will respond differently to different energy inputs.

 

When I say detecting, I'm talking about how it handles historical data. Is a day of undereating different from a year of undereating, or five, and if so, how does that historical "memory" work? How can the body have memory of that, and yet it seems that it might.

 

You know, I'm suddenly thinking the answer may be epigenetics, because I do recall studies about the children and grandchildren of people who survived famine situations, and they were able to detect metabolic changes made in response to that famine two and three generations later. It looks like that is the major mechanism of bodily memory, changes to genetic expression.

 

Which, frankly, leaves me with even more doubts about the unknowns in the CICO model. Apart from its overall failure as a tool in medical science, I cannot imagine it being sophisticated enough for an understanding of biology where your deficit can cause your gene expression to switch on and off, changing how your body responds to food and deficits at a genetic level. It's Victorian science, in a field where science has always struggled to outpace myth, and I can't see "we burned sugar in our calorimeter and as a result fully understand man's metabolism in terms of steam engine design" rising to the top of the pile in a world of heritable hormonally-mediated gene toggling.

I felt like I could run forever, like I could smell the wind and feel the grass under my feet, and just run forever.

Current Challenge: #24 - Mrs. Cosmopolite Challenge

Past: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6,  #7#8, #9#10, #11a & #11b, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23

Link to post

My yogurt is 3 hours into its 23 hour journey to become adult yogurt. I'm not sure I'm a fan of the flavor of the yogurt I'm using as the starter, which I only learned after I inoculated it, but it will probably be good for me. We'll see. If I hate it, I'll get a different starter.

 

Yogurt is very easy to make in my pressure cooker, quite healthy, and a major, major savings over buying it, especially given the quality I can make, so it's really something I should make more often.

I felt like I could run forever, like I could smell the wind and feel the grass under my feet, and just run forever.

Current Challenge: #24 - Mrs. Cosmopolite Challenge

Past: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6,  #7#8, #9#10, #11a & #11b, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23

Link to post

 

41 minutes ago, sarakingdom said:

 

That's not a useful concept when the body can decrease metabolic activity in response to low calories, and we can’t quantify that reduction. It has to mean "of optimal intake", or it means nothing. Particularly when what I'm saying is that, in six months and with six 10% calorie level reductions held for a month each, measured to the gram and normalised for all exercise (I'm a scientist, I do data collection), I never hit hit a low value where I don't maintain. At the lowest value, I was hobbling for three days after a trivial 40 minute hike because next to zero physical repair was happening, but my weight was steady at the same place it had been six months before. My body will literally damage itself before dropping weight at low calories, and you're going to have a hard time convincing me that's a meaningful usage of eating at my BMR.

 

You're also going to hit real issues with that usage outside of just me, because in practice, BMR and TDEE are both used to refer to calculated reference targets.

 

 

I don't make up the definitions, but yes, if BMR is a moving and unmeasurable target then it is not super practical. Anyway, if you already have the data then that's good. It sounds like when your body doesn't have enough energy for weight maintenance plus repair, it cuts repair, not fat stores. That seems like a really good reason not to eat low amounts. I think it could be worthwhile to do that experiment where you gradually increase your calories. If your maintenance is very flexible, then maybe an increase could give you more energy and repair? It's worth a try, right?

 

41 minutes ago, sarakingdom said:

Humans can excrete nearly anything else they have too much of, so why do we assume that's not an option under the right conditions? In the context of the hormonal theory of weight loss, I've seen discussion of a trial that called this highly into question by giving people 5000 calories a day instead of 2000 without significant weight changes, along with discussion of how humans are not closed systems and applying the thermodynamics principles of closed systems to them is a fundamental mistake, so citation needed. I'm not unwilling to believe it, but I need more evidence.

 

And that evidence is the problem. It can't be proven. We say it must be true, because we assume the theory is accurate. But we're unable to actually measure, so we cannot know. It's circular reasoning that we do not possess the technology to prove or disprove. There is clearly some approximate correlation, but the range of behaviors and outcomes is not well modeled, well predicted, or statistically influenceable, and that is terrible medical science. A lot of the attempts to balance the current equations begin by presuming the theory is true, so there must be something making up for the difference, which then proves the theory is true, and they are far from the most convincing arguments for it.

 

When I say detecting, I'm talking about how it handles historical data. Is a day of undereating different from a year of undereating, or five, and if so, how does that historical "memory" work? How can the body have memory of that, and yet it seems that it might.

 

You know, I'm suddenly thinking the answer may be epigenetics, because I do recall studies about the children and grandchildren of people who survived famine situations, and they were able to detect metabolic changes made in response to that famine two and three generations later. It looks like that is the major mechanism of bodily memory, changes to genetic expression.

 

Which, frankly, leaves me with even more doubts about the unknowns in the CICO model. Apart from its overall failure as a tool in medical science, I cannot imagine it being sophisticated enough for an understanding of biology where your deficit can cause your gene expression to switch on and off, changing how your body responds to food and deficits at a genetic level. It's Victorian science, in a field where science has always struggled to outpace myth, and I can't see "we burned sugar in our calorimeter and as a result fully understand man's metabolism in terms of steam engine design" rising to the top of the pile in a world of heritable hormonally-mediated gene toggling.

 

What exactly are we discussing here? A super simplistic equation of 'subtract 500 calories from your TDEE to lose exactly one pound per week' or the more general idea that energy has to come from somewhere? I agree with you that the first idea is evidently wrong, since energy can do a lot more things than be stored or burned from stores. That was proven when they studied people in overfeeding studies--some people gained weight, others increased NEAT (and vice versa when underfed). (And you're right, excreting excess energy could also be a possibility). And I daresay some people are more efficient at extracting energy from food thanks to their microbiome or genetics. But I don't think any of this is inconsistent with the idea that the energy we need for bodily functions (including storing weight) needs to come from somewhere, and surely I don't need a specific study for that?

 

As to the body's memory of food scarcity, it could have memory in the sense that we might trigger changes that do not have an equal and opposite mechanism to return things to "normal" when the initial cause is removed. Or at least not immediately. There's no reason to think changes in the body would need to be symmetrically responsive like that. Indeed, epigenetics could be a factor. Maybe also changes in microbiome, or changes in the brain.

 

  • Like 1

Let cheese and bread and mead crowd out our secret desires for power and domination.

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

New here? Please check out our Privacy Policy and Community Guidelines