4 ms·

Yes, it's nonsensical to say that X can't be reduced when you "only" have control over a strict upper bound on X. The real problem is that eating less is HARD

Yes, it's nonsensical to say that X can't be reduced when you "only" have control over a strict upper bound on X. The real problem is that eating less is HARD. I have the utmost sympathy for people who struggle to eat less. I think it's great that we have many strategies to eat less, I hope that we develop more strategies and more effective strategies, and I wish everyone luck in their search. I think it's actively counterproductive to say that "eat fewer calories" isn't the goal, though. Calories should be a first stop for measuring the efficacy of your strategies. Getting rid of your primary measuring stick is madness. If "CICO Sucks" claimants came armed with better measuring sticks, sure, they would have a point, but they generally don't, meaning their actual proposal is to discard the yardstick, which is madness. How do you hope to find an effective strategy if you can't measure the efficacy of your strategy? Good: "De-rate exercise calories by 50% due to compensation." Ok: "Count your calories." Bad: ... Really Bad: "CICO sucks, nobody knows anything, so buy my book and try my fad diet!"

notJim 5y ago
A lot of the time, CICO sucks people are using some other metric that, for them, ends up being basically a proxy for calories. I think similarly, when people totally change their diet (going low carb or keto or whatever), it basically amounts to a wholesale reevaluation. The end result of that will generally be eating less calories. To me, all of this is basically fine. If someone finds an effective way to trick themselves into eating fewer calories, that's still a win. I'm referring here to people who are themselves losing weight, not the hucksters.