I found it helpful. In a world where a million distracting influences are promising cheats, shortcuts, and easy ways to get to the goal, a single true statement to focus attention and wipe away the bullshit is incredibly useful.
Sugar and insulin response are critical to weight loss. The more overweight, the more you're insulin resistant, the harder it is to actually lose weight. Once you hit metabolic syndrome you've got a big problem on your hands. The CI-CO model is not sufficient to model weight loss effectively. Especially since with caloric restriction your BMR slows down to match your reduced intake (which doesn't happen with fasting, FWIW).
tl;dr: The only time CI-CO is truly accurate is when CI=0.
That's an extreme overgeneralization that's wrong in just the right places to be misleading. While there is a reduction in energy expenditure associated with the reduction of caloric intake, it is not equivalent to the reduction in caloric intake.
For instance, in a study of obese women, a reduction of (4.3 +-(4.6) kcal/kg) was observed in a calorie restriction diet of 20kcal/kg
Similarly, in a different study, a 30% calorie intake reduction was linked to only about a 5% reduction in total energy expenditure.
CI-CO is not a perfect model, in that it doesn't perfectly estimate weight loss rates, but the general concept holds true.
> That's an extreme overgeneralization that's wrong in just the right places to be misleading. While there is a reduction in energy expenditure associated with the reduction of caloric intake, it is not equivalent to the reduction in caloric intake.
I didn't mean to imply that it was 1:1, just that the model doesn't hold entirely.
> CI-CO is not a perfect model, in that it doesn't perfectly estimate weight loss rates, but the general concept holds true.
In general, I suppose, however most people aren't trying to lose weight but rather fat. Consuming sugar causes a spike in insulin, and insulin triggers the uptake of sugar in the blood by adipose tissue as fat, and actively prevents the release of fats stored therein. [1]
So in the most literal sense, CI-CO works, in that (net of the 16% reduction in TEE relative to your reduction in CI per your data) you're going to need to get the calories from somewhere. However, if you eat 30% less calories than your BMR entirely as sugar, you're much more likely to be burning alcohol, glycogen and protein than fat, certainly in the near term.
If you combine that with the "eat 6 meals per day" fad and you're in for a seriously tough time losing fat. On the other hand if you at 30% less calories than your BMR entirely as sugar in one sitting over 20 minutes and fasted the remaining 23h30 you may actually lose fat, since that'll give your body time with low insulin levels.
Let me re-state: CI-CO is a very inadequate model for losing fat.
CI doesn't have to be 0. That's total nonsense. You think if you eat one grape per day suddenly you won't lose weight, or something? Who said anything about 0?
CI-CO is accurate if CI<CO. There is absolutely no way it cannot be. This doesn't depend on any kind of reasoning about biology or insulin or hormones at all. It's the law of conservation of energy.
That's the beauty of it. It always works. If CO<CI, you will lose weight. There has never been an exception to this in the history of life, and there never will be.
Even fasting, which you mentioned, only works as a means to an end. And that end is CI<CO. Research shows that the actual timing of fasts is irrelevant; the same calories eaten in 6 hours per day have the same effect if eaten over 16 hours of the day. But when people fast they tend to eat less overall; it's all that matters.
So many people try to follow your path, and figure out a way to manipulate complex metabolic systems they don't understand to try to wheedle the body into dropping pounds. It works only rarity, and 98% of people on this path are just deluding themselves to avoid facing the fact that they need to get CI down under CO. So they take refuge in complexity, endlessly finding ways to rationalize away the need to do the actual work.
