4 ms·

The value of e is a sideshow, and the entire CICO equation is a sideshow: an equation is a grossly oversimplified model. Humans are not static heat engines. The

The value of e is a sideshow, and the entire CICO equation is a sideshow: an equation is a grossly oversimplified model. Humans are not static heat engines. The macronutrient composition of the food we eat changes the metabolic environment. This is the first axiom to accept, before you can even begin to talk about optimizing an equation.

edanm 5y ago
You're not wrong, per se, but to a very reasonable approximation, that doesn't matter. CICO is much closer to being "true" than not. If someone wants to lose weight, a simple (though not necessarily easy to execute) plan is to calculate their rough current TDEE, then eat those amount of calories minus 300 or so, and if they're not losing weight, do 200 calories less than that. Rinse and repeat. If someone follows the above protocol, and we take as a given they stick to it, do you agree that they'd lose weight? In practice, other diets can be easier to adhere to, for various reasons: 1. Eating at a caloric deficit makes you hungry, which makes it harder to not overeat. 2. People are bad at counting calories, so might get wrong numbers. 3. It's not fun to count calories, so people might not do it. In many ways, something like keto that works for a lot of people without the annoyance of counting calories, can be much better for many people. But in terms of the underlying mechanics, it's still a calorie deficit that is producing those results, which might give more flexibility to people who do want to count calories. (E.g. for me, counting calories was way better than any other "diet" I tried - I could keep eating what I wanted, so was able to be very flexible with my "diet" while still losing weight).
- jkhdigital 5y ago
  Yes, and a simple protocol for curing alcoholism is to moderate one’s drinking. Advice based on the tautology that reduced caloric intake (all else held equal) leads to weight loss is simple, correct, and obviously ineffective on large numbers of people. The problem is not the people, it is the advice.
  - edanm 5y ago
    I disagree. It's not complete advice, just as telling an alcoholic to drink less isn't the complete answer. But vaguely denying the idea that what we're aiming for is to drink less alcohol does more harm than good. You may not realize the influence the "alternative" advice has. For many years I was confused on this, thinking that it's not as simple as CICO, that fasting and/or reducing carbs somehow did something special, etc. In the last year, I started taking weight loss more seriously, I bought into CICO, started calorie counting, and lost a bunch of weight (though to be clear, I wasnt obese, just a bit overweight). And since then, I've often thought to myself that maybe I'm misremembering exactly what I thought before, that surely I didn't really think that CICO isn't true. But I've had the opportunity since to talk to many people about this, most of them adamant that I couldn't have lost weight without giving up carbs, or that they could lose weight just by reducing carbs without any thought to total calories, or other other such things. And this alternative cute of "the experts in this field are wrong, only I an outsider can see the obvious truth that somehow vaguely you don't need to worry about calories at all" causes real harm, both to what People do, and to how they think. If someone wants to lose weight and is willing to actually put in some effort, imo the best thing to do is to count calories, reduce intake, and find out what set of foods Keeps you full and happy within that caloric window (quite possibly keto being the best option for a lot of people).

edanm 5y ago

You're not wrong, per se, but to a very reasonable approximation, that doesn't matter. CICO is much closer to being "true" than not. If someone wants to lose weight, a simple (though not necessarily easy to execute) plan is to calculate their rough current TDEE, then eat those amount of calories minus 300 or so, and if they're not losing weight, do 200 calories less than that. Rinse and repeat. If someone follows the above protocol, and we take as a given they stick to it, do you agree that they'd lose weight? In practice, other diets can be easier to adhere to, for various reasons: 1. Eating at a caloric deficit makes you hungry, which makes it harder to not overeat. 2. People are bad at counting calories, so might get wrong numbers. 3. It's not fun to count calories, so people might not do it. In many ways, something like keto that works for a lot of people without the annoyance of counting calories, can be much better for many people. But in terms of the underlying mechanics, it's still a calorie deficit that is producing those results, which might give more flexibility to people who do want to count calories. (E.g. for me, counting calories was way better than any other "diet" I tried - I could keep eating what I wanted, so was able to be very flexible with my "diet" while still losing weight).

jkhdigital 5y ago
Yes, and a simple protocol for curing alcoholism is to moderate one’s drinking. Advice based on the tautology that reduced caloric intake (all else held equal) leads to weight loss is simple, correct, and obviously ineffective on large numbers of people. The problem is not the people, it is the advice.
- edanm 5y ago
  I disagree. It's not complete advice, just as telling an alcoholic to drink less isn't the complete answer. But vaguely denying the idea that what we're aiming for is to drink less alcohol does more harm than good. You may not realize the influence the "alternative" advice has. For many years I was confused on this, thinking that it's not as simple as CICO, that fasting and/or reducing carbs somehow did something special, etc. In the last year, I started taking weight loss more seriously, I bought into CICO, started calorie counting, and lost a bunch of weight (though to be clear, I wasnt obese, just a bit overweight). And since then, I've often thought to myself that maybe I'm misremembering exactly what I thought before, that surely I didn't really think that CICO isn't true. But I've had the opportunity since to talk to many people about this, most of them adamant that I couldn't have lost weight without giving up carbs, or that they could lose weight just by reducing carbs without any thought to total calories, or other other such things. And this alternative cute of "the experts in this field are wrong, only I an outsider can see the obvious truth that somehow vaguely you don't need to worry about calories at all" causes real harm, both to what People do, and to how they think. If someone wants to lose weight and is willing to actually put in some effort, imo the best thing to do is to count calories, reduce intake, and find out what set of foods Keeps you full and happy within that caloric window (quite possibly keto being the best option for a lot of people).