4 ms·
> You are implicitly assuming that CO will be constant and would be independent of CI... We do not know that to be true. No, we can reason about this fairly ea
by wdewind 8y ago
> You are implicitly assuming that CO will be constant and would be independent of CI... We do not know that to be true.
No, we can reason about this fairly easily knowing the extraction costs of calories from macronutrients. You're correct in that macronutrient content can affect CO, but you're vastly overstating the amount. There is no model of digestion we've come up with that accounts for much more than 10% of calories going to digestion, so even if you max that out, you still end up with pretty similar levels of obesity. We cannot fix this problem without radically reducing the amount we eat, regardless of the macronutrient content.
> I seem to recall a bunch of animal models where compliance was controlled for and still showed a strong correlation between insulin and set weight.
Please send links, all I can do is respond to the specifics of an actual study.
- soulbadguy 8y agoOr higher basal metabolism and higher activity levels ... Both of which would increase CO... But we're getting out track , my point is simply that CICO expresses a relationship between calorie in , calorie out and the variation in people weigth . It's doesn't say that one can control people weigth using CI. The analogy that Judea pearl uses is that there is a relationship between the number displayed on a thermostat and the temperature outside , but that does not imply that one can control the temperature outside by changing the number displayed on the thermostat
- wdewind 8y ago> It's doesn't say that one can control people weigth using CI. It absolutely says that. Absent other factors changing, a reduction in caloric intake will result in a weight loss. It does not disagree with there also being other inputs to CO.
- soulbadguy 8y agoYeah I had the feeling that that's where we would disagree. Happy to agree to disagree on this one