4 ms·

I only read to page 8 or 9 but I don't think the author did a very good job of refuting anything. In particular the author points out that we are eating about

I only read to page 8 or 9 but I don't think the author did a very good job of refuting anything. In particular the author points out that we are eating about 20% more calories than we were 1970, but then argues that 20% is not all that much and no big deal. They then cite some papers where people ate more and gained weight, then stopped eating and lost the weight. But 20% is a lot, its huge. Do that every day your whole life, then yeah, your body is going to be different. You stomach is going to be larger, your whole body is going to be different. An yeah, dropping your calorie intake by 20% is going to be hard, really hard when all you have know your whole life is more!

keithwhor 5y ago
I only read the first chapter of LotR and I don't understand what the big deal is. Hobbiton is a pretty shitty place to stage an adventure novel, seems boring.
- jay_kyburz 5y ago
  My point was that the author did not make a good case for debunking even the first theory, and I had no reason to believe that they would do any better in the rest of the paper. I did wade through 7 pages of "mysteries" which was a kind of annoying way to frame the topic in the first place. Also, you make a good point, Hobbiton actually actually is a great place to start an adventure, and _is_ a compelling reason to continue reading.
  - keithwhor 5y ago
    Yeah I agree with you, that's what I was saying, I feel the same way about LotR. First book was a snooze and couldn't finish the rest.
jjoonathan 5y ago
Yeah, the argument "If you don't count CI or CO correctly, CICO doesn't work, therefore CICO is debunked" is pretty silly. As an accounting mechanism, it's basic physics. If CI<CO, you will lose weight -- you might not find it easy, you might not thrive, you might not even survive, but the universe itself will make sure that you lose weight. I don't think that's really what the authors intended to tangle with, though. I agree it came off that way, but maybe we are all just a bit touchy from 1001 fad diet pitches that all begin by trashing CICO in exactly the way the authors did, because if you get good at CICO you are in a position to actually evaluate whether or not the fad diet is any good, which is a big problem for most fad diets. Here's why I have less of an issue with CICO trashing in the context of this article: the authors are trying to figure out explanatory mechanisms for the obesity epidemic. They are spot on to point out that CICO says nothing about the feedback mechanisms that control CI and CO, and that figuring out those mechanisms is key to figuring out the obesity epidemic. CICO is correct as far as it goes, but it doesn't go where the authors are going.
- __turbobrew__ 5y ago
  Short of putting someone within a closed system vessel and counting the energy which goes into the vessel and the energy which comes out of the vessel you will never get an accurate measurement of CICO. It is relatively easy to measure the calories you intake via food/drink since that can be roughly approximated using lab tests, but there is basically no accurate way to calculate the amount of calories somebody expends. I haven't heard of anyone counting calories running their shit and urine through a calorimeter to figure out how much of the energy in their food was absorbed by their body and this isn't even counting energy expended through heat, skin/nail shedding, and breath. The article should have said "true CICO is impossible since measuring calories out is practically impossible" instead of "CICO doesn't work".
  - jjoonathan 5y ago
    > there is basically no accurate way to calculate the amount of calories somebody expends Eh, you can get pretty close. Still, you're technically correct. Practical CICO "only" gives you a lower bound for how much weight you will lose. You might lose more. Here's the thing, though: stepping on a scale is pretty easy. If you lose too much weight with CICO, you'll know, and I bet you can figure out how to gain it back.

keithwhor 5y ago

I only read the first chapter of LotR and I don't understand what the big deal is. Hobbiton is a pretty shitty place to stage an adventure novel, seems boring.

jay_kyburz 5y ago
My point was that the author did not make a good case for debunking even the first theory, and I had no reason to believe that they would do any better in the rest of the paper. I did wade through 7 pages of "mysteries" which was a kind of annoying way to frame the topic in the first place. Also, you make a good point, Hobbiton actually actually is a great place to start an adventure, and _is_ a compelling reason to continue reading.
- keithwhor 5y ago
  Yeah I agree with you, that's what I was saying, I feel the same way about LotR. First book was a snooze and couldn't finish the rest.

jjoonathan 5y ago

Yeah, the argument "If you don't count CI or CO correctly, CICO doesn't work, therefore CICO is debunked" is pretty silly. As an accounting mechanism, it's basic physics. If CI<CO, you will lose weight -- you might not find it easy, you might not thrive, you might not even survive, but the universe itself will make sure that you lose weight. I don't think that's really what the authors intended to tangle with, though. I agree it came off that way, but maybe we are all just a bit touchy from 1001 fad diet pitches that all begin by trashing CICO in exactly the way the authors did, because if you get good at CICO you are in a position to actually evaluate whether or not the fad diet is any good, which is a big problem for most fad diets. Here's why I have less of an issue with CICO trashing in the context of this article: the authors are trying to figure out explanatory mechanisms for the obesity epidemic. They are spot on to point out that CICO says nothing about the feedback mechanisms that control CI and CO, and that figuring out those mechanisms is key to figuring out the obesity epidemic. CICO is correct as far as it goes, but it doesn't go where the authors are going.

__turbobrew__ 5y ago
Short of putting someone within a closed system vessel and counting the energy which goes into the vessel and the energy which comes out of the vessel you will never get an accurate measurement of CICO. It is relatively easy to measure the calories you intake via food/drink since that can be roughly approximated using lab tests, but there is basically no accurate way to calculate the amount of calories somebody expends. I haven't heard of anyone counting calories running their shit and urine through a calorimeter to figure out how much of the energy in their food was absorbed by their body and this isn't even counting energy expended through heat, skin/nail shedding, and breath. The article should have said "true CICO is impossible since measuring calories out is practically impossible" instead of "CICO doesn't work".
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  > there is basically no accurate way to calculate the amount of calories somebody expends Eh, you can get pretty close. Still, you're technically correct. Practical CICO "only" gives you a lower bound for how much weight you will lose. You might lose more. Here's the thing, though: stepping on a scale is pretty easy. If you lose too much weight with CICO, you'll know, and I bet you can figure out how to gain it back.