5 ms·

Calories in calories out works. The thing you, and many critics of CICO, are missing is that the food you eat affects both sides of the equation.

Viliam1234 6y ago
> Calories in calories out works. What do you mean by "works" here? Technically it is true... the same way as "atoms in, atoms out" is technically true. So why do people prefer saying "calories in, calories out" instead of "atoms in, atoms out"? That's because "calories in, calories out" implies that there is an easy solution to being fat... you simply need to "out" more calories, while you "in" less calories, duh! Which conveniently ignores all possible problems with trying to "in" less calories and "out" more of them. For example, that your metabolism can make you feel extremely tired, even pass out, if you don't "in" enough calories. Similarly, to "out" more calories you sometimes need more than sheer willpower; your muscles have to cooperate, and sometimes they will only if you "in" enough calories.
- fredophile 6y ago
  I mean anyone trying to tell you that it doesn't work and they have some magic shortcut for how to lose weight is lying to you. Their method for weight loss might work for you but not because CICO is wrong. I would argue that CICO does not imply easy. The rendering equation really just says light in == light out but that doesn't mean writing a renderer is easy. People who say CICO doesn't work are usually trying to sell you an "easy" way to lose weight. Take this proprietary fat burning pill. Don't eat carbs. Don't eat fats. Eat 6 small meals a day. Eat 1 meal a day. Don't feed your mogwai after midnight. If one of these strategies works for you, great. You've found a way to get calories in less than calories out.
  - Viliam1234 6y ago
    One of those easy methods might actually work by affecting the "calories in". I mean, not everything you eat is processed by your body; some potential calories may be simply excreted. I can imagine how a pill, composition of food, or even the timing of it, might influence the gut flora, which in turn would change how many calories are actually extracted from the food. This is the danger I see in simple slogans, that they make people automatically dismiss potential solutions. Of course, if a successful solution is found, it will be obvious in hindsight that CICO didn't actually contradict it. But no one who is happy with CICO as an answer is looking in that direction now. EDIT: Same objection applies to "calories out". How do you spend calories? Typically by exercise or sport. But that way you can only spend calories that are currently stored in your muscles. What about calories that are currently stored in your fat cells -- how do you move them from there, into your muscles? Again, I imagine that a pill, or a change of diet, could make this more easy or difficult.

Viliam1234 6y ago

> Calories in calories out works. What do you mean by "works" here? Technically it is true... the same way as "atoms in, atoms out" is technically true. So why do people prefer saying "calories in, calories out" instead of "atoms in, atoms out"? That's because "calories in, calories out" implies that there is an easy solution to being fat... you simply need to "out" more calories, while you "in" less calories, duh! Which conveniently ignores all possible problems with trying to "in" less calories and "out" more of them. For example, that your metabolism can make you feel extremely tired, even pass out, if you don't "in" enough calories. Similarly, to "out" more calories you sometimes need more than sheer willpower; your muscles have to cooperate, and sometimes they will only if you "in" enough calories.

fredophile 6y ago
I mean anyone trying to tell you that it doesn't work and they have some magic shortcut for how to lose weight is lying to you. Their method for weight loss might work for you but not because CICO is wrong. I would argue that CICO does not imply easy. The rendering equation really just says light in == light out but that doesn't mean writing a renderer is easy. People who say CICO doesn't work are usually trying to sell you an "easy" way to lose weight. Take this proprietary fat burning pill. Don't eat carbs. Don't eat fats. Eat 6 small meals a day. Eat 1 meal a day. Don't feed your mogwai after midnight. If one of these strategies works for you, great. You've found a way to get calories in less than calories out.
- Viliam1234 6y ago
  One of those easy methods might actually work by affecting the "calories in". I mean, not everything you eat is processed by your body; some potential calories may be simply excreted. I can imagine how a pill, composition of food, or even the timing of it, might influence the gut flora, which in turn would change how many calories are actually extracted from the food. This is the danger I see in simple slogans, that they make people automatically dismiss potential solutions. Of course, if a successful solution is found, it will be obvious in hindsight that CICO didn't actually contradict it. But no one who is happy with CICO as an answer is looking in that direction now. EDIT: Same objection applies to "calories out". How do you spend calories? Typically by exercise or sport. But that way you can only spend calories that are currently stored in your muscles. What about calories that are currently stored in your fat cells -- how do you move them from there, into your muscles? Again, I imagine that a pill, or a change of diet, could make this more easy or difficult.