5 ms·

How can you possibly read GP's comment and think they don't realize this? Stop nitpicking. Calories In vs Calories Out is correct. Period. It doesn't matter

How can you possibly read GP's comment and think they don't realize this? Stop nitpicking. Calories In vs Calories Out is correct. Period. It doesn't matter if Calories out is hard to calculate.

criddell 4y ago
Are you saying Harvard professor Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford [1] is incorrect? [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima_Cody_Stanford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima_Cody_Stanford
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Appeals to authority are a poor tactic
  - criddell 4y ago
    Maybe, but in this case I don't think it's fallacious. She publishes, is cited all over the place, teaches at a well regarded school, and has explicitly and plainly said CICO is wrong when it comes to weight loss. This[1] is a good summary of a talk she gave about a year ago and in it she talks a bit about the non-CICO factors in weight gain or loss. Here's one example: “The gut microbiota of those that are lean versus those that have obesity are quite different, so much so that we can often take the gut microbiota out of individuals that are lean and place it in those that have obesity and see weight shifts with no other modifications."
    - alldayeveryday 4y ago
      > She is the director of diversity and inclusion for the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at Harvard (NORCH) Why did I know this before I even looked? >“The gut microbiota of those that are lean versus those that have obesity are quite different, so much so that we can often take the gut microbiota out of individuals that are lean and place it in those that have obesity and see weight shifts with no other modifications." Yeah, so all that effects is CO (calories burned). This does not disprove CICO. I see Fatima has a limited grasp of logic.
      - criddell 4y ago
        > all that effects is CO (calories burned) Not necessarily. In this case I think she is referring to calories that are not absorbed but are excreted.
vorpalhex 4y ago
Calories In vs Calories Out is mediated by a factor, usually labeled S, which accounts for the individuals own metabolic factor. Meaning if you are naively doing calories in vs calories out, or doing desired estimated calories out based on a table, you have an error factor significant enough to skew your results. What we call it doesn't matter, but what GP said is actually incorrect as written.
- codethief 4y ago
  > What we call it doesn't matter, but what GP said is actually incorrect as written. Please do point out which part of my comment is incorrect. > Meaning if you are naively doing calories in vs calories out, or doing desired estimated calories out based on a table, you have an error factor significant enough to skew your results. What does "naively doing calories in vs calories out" mean exactly? I agree that some people do it naively but where exactly was my comment naive? > Calories In vs Calories Out is mediated by a factor, usually labeled S, which accounts for the individuals own metabolic factor. Yes, the metabolic factor affects the numeric value of E_I and E_O (I never disputed that), but once you have determined their value (or bounded them as in my comment – which, as demonstrated, is orders of magnitude easier), the statement "weight loss occurs if E_O > E_I" remains correct.
elenaferrantes 4y ago
"Calories In vs Calories Out is correct". Maybe it’s correct but I doubt it’s useful. How do you explain that people who do not count calories maintain their weight ?

How can you possibly read GP's comment and think they don't realize this? Stop nitpicking. Calories In vs Calories Out is correct. Period. It doesn't matter if Calories out is hard to calculate.

criddell 4y ago

Are you saying Harvard professor Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford [1] is incorrect? [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima_Cody_Stanford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima_Cody_Stanford

vorpalhex 4y ago
Appeals to authority are a poor tactic
- criddell 4y ago
  Maybe, but in this case I don't think it's fallacious. She publishes, is cited all over the place, teaches at a well regarded school, and has explicitly and plainly said CICO is wrong when it comes to weight loss. This[1] is a good summary of a talk she gave about a year ago and in it she talks a bit about the non-CICO factors in weight gain or loss. Here's one example: “The gut microbiota of those that are lean versus those that have obesity are quite different, so much so that we can often take the gut microbiota out of individuals that are lean and place it in those that have obesity and see weight shifts with no other modifications."
  - alldayeveryday 4y ago
    > She is the director of diversity and inclusion for the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at Harvard (NORCH) Why did I know this before I even looked? >“The gut microbiota of those that are lean versus those that have obesity are quite different, so much so that we can often take the gut microbiota out of individuals that are lean and place it in those that have obesity and see weight shifts with no other modifications." Yeah, so all that effects is CO (calories burned). This does not disprove CICO. I see Fatima has a limited grasp of logic.
    - criddell 4y ago
      > all that effects is CO (calories burned) Not necessarily. In this case I think she is referring to calories that are not absorbed but are excreted.

vorpalhex 4y ago

Calories In vs Calories Out is mediated by a factor, usually labeled S, which accounts for the individuals own metabolic factor. Meaning if you are naively doing calories in vs calories out, or doing desired estimated calories out based on a table, you have an error factor significant enough to skew your results. What we call it doesn't matter, but what GP said is actually incorrect as written.

codethief 4y ago
> What we call it doesn't matter, but what GP said is actually incorrect as written. Please do point out which part of my comment is incorrect. > Meaning if you are naively doing calories in vs calories out, or doing desired estimated calories out based on a table, you have an error factor significant enough to skew your results. What does "naively doing calories in vs calories out" mean exactly? I agree that some people do it naively but where exactly was my comment naive? > Calories In vs Calories Out is mediated by a factor, usually labeled S, which accounts for the individuals own metabolic factor. Yes, the metabolic factor affects the numeric value of E_I and E_O (I never disputed that), but once you have determined their value (or bounded them as in my comment – which, as demonstrated, is orders of magnitude easier), the statement "weight loss occurs if E_O > E_I" remains correct.

elenaferrantes 4y ago

"Calories In vs Calories Out is correct". Maybe it’s correct but I doubt it’s useful. How do you explain that people who do not count calories maintain their weight ?