6 ms·

Someone can correct me here, but I believe CICO is false, due to the the difference of efficiency in difference foods and the different people consuming them, l

by oDot 4y ago

Someone can correct me here, but I believe CICO is false, due to the the difference of efficiency in difference foods and the different people consuming them, leading to significant differences compared to CICO values.

parker_mountain 4y ago
CICO is not false, and that is at most a +-10% variance. Food absorption is definitely is a part of Calories In. If you're worried that you're absorbing more or less calories versus other people, adjust your Calories In. More likely, you are miscounting calories - a common mistake that people trying to lose weight make. For example, you'd be surprised how many calories are in that packet of creamy sauce that came with your fast food! CICO is hard to stick to, because we are biologically wired to enjoy high calorie diets. As a result, lots of people have come up with justifications as to why it wasn't their fault that they failed to adhere to it. The reality is that weight loss is simple. It's very difficult, especially if you're not willing to completely overhaul your diet and relationship with food as an American.
- TaupeRanger 4y ago
  Don't eat breakfast and don't gorge on snacks before bedtime. That will be a huge benefit to most people that struggle. Now...getting the willpower to stick with it is another battle...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - parker_mountain 4y ago
    Personally, I drink these 100 cal nutrition drinks for breakfast, or have a banana, and a sparkling water. I've settled on - Very lightweight breakfast (~100 cal) - Light lunch (~700 cal) - Heavy dinner (~1400 cal) - Hard liquor only (tall single vodka/soda is my goto) You'll notice that's over 2000~ a day. I also walk a lot, use an exercise bike instead of the couch when watching TV, and bicycle everywhere I can. On lazy days, I adjust downwards. One thing I've done that's helped a lot is eating a low carb diet - I did keto, found it was incredible effective in losing weight, but kinda brutal. Instead, a low carb (non-ketosis) diet allows for some carbs but significantly reduces "empty calories".
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    Well, if your going to help us all lose serious weight via CICO, I think having a big snack here and there is more than deserved. After all, shooting any significant amount of the planet's crust into space is definitely hungry work...
- elil17 4y ago
  I would say that overhauling your diet/relationship with food is really not what it's about. It's about gathering the necessary energy, resources, etc. to start putting significant amounts of Earth's mass on an escape trajectory.
- francisofascii 4y ago
  > weight loss is simple. It's very difficult Wait, which one is it? Simple or very difficult. Lol. I think you meant the calorie math is simple.
  - Kranar 4y ago
    The opposite of simple is not difficult, it's complex. The opposite of difficult is not simple, it's easy. Simplicity has to do with the effort needed to understand something, difficulty has to do with the effort needed to perform an action. It's not unusual that something that requires little effort to understand requires a great deal of effort to execute.
elil17 4y ago
CICO is absolutely true, that's a fact. All you have to do is look at the basic physics. If you reduce the mass of the Earth by 50% (without decreasing your distance from Earths center, a common trap people fall into when they're trying to lose weight), you will lose 50% of your weight. Fad diets and "body mass" are, excuse my harsh language, B.S. Yes they can contribute to weight loss but they are going to let you lose 10 or 15 pounds tops. Reducing the weight of the Earth, on the other hand, can get you to lose essentially any amount of weight.
- pydry 4y ago
  The trick to giving up cigarattes is not lighting them, putting in your mouth and inhaling the smoke. CICO certainly isnt false.
- screye 4y ago
  I love how you're committed to the bit now.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    It's the same bit as the article itself, right?
    - elil17 4y ago
      Yes LOL
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        I know you know, I was trying to see if the other commenter does
        screye 4y ago
        What is an article ? Is that the top comment you see below the title when you open an HN post ?
jahnu 4y ago
There are different ways to measure calories. In a calorimeter you can measure all the calories in some stuff. In your body the amount of calories available to your body to digest is some amount less depending on what that stuff is. This can vary from foodstuff to foodstuff by (iirc) about 1-15% So one could be more accurate and say Available CaloriesICO I guess Unless you are an athlete or have some condition the simple CICO rule is accurate enough to be useful. Eat less, move more, and weight will be lost (or at least gains will slow). None of this says anything about each person’s own life challenges that alter how difficult it is to do that.
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  Wouldnt the undigested calories just get added into calories out?
- foobarian 4y ago
  Now that you mention it, I'm pretty sure modern calorimeters won't catch the energy available via nuclear reactions. What if our digestive tracts have evolved some as-of-yet undiscovered mechanism to tap into that energy, thereby invalidating all the "CICO" people's claims? Now that would be a real pickle.
  - jahnu 4y ago
    Hark at Nibbler!
- elil17 4y ago
  I think that the energy density of rocket fuel is pretty easy to measure. If you're trying to do a food powered rocket it's true the energy measurements could get more complicated.
bluGill 4y ago
CICO is still true. While some foods can increase metabolism (the other reply suggested up to 10% - sounds reasonable to me), that is an increase in calories out. You can also increase metabolism by exercising, or some drugs.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  What exactly does food have to do with CICO? You're certainly not going to get very far at ejecting the earth's crust by burning food...
  - brippalcharrid 4y ago
    There's no reason why certain physically and calorifically dense foods (eg. Christmas pudding) couldn't necessarily be combined with oxidizers and fitted into solid rocket motors, which could then be used to launch significant chunks of the earth's crust out of its gravity well.
    - selimthegrim 4y ago
      That’s not why I nicknamed my chili recipe Red Mercury.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

by oDot 4y ago

parker_mountain 4y ago

CICO is not false, and that is at most a +-10% variance. Food absorption is definitely is a part of Calories In. If you're worried that you're absorbing more or less calories versus other people, adjust your Calories In. More likely, you are miscounting calories - a common mistake that people trying to lose weight make. For example, you'd be surprised how many calories are in that packet of creamy sauce that came with your fast food! CICO is hard to stick to, because we are biologically wired to enjoy high calorie diets. As a result, lots of people have come up with justifications as to why it wasn't their fault that they failed to adhere to it. The reality is that weight loss is simple. It's very difficult, especially if you're not willing to completely overhaul your diet and relationship with food as an American.

TaupeRanger 4y ago
Don't eat breakfast and don't gorge on snacks before bedtime. That will be a huge benefit to most people that struggle. Now...getting the willpower to stick with it is another battle...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- parker_mountain 4y ago
  Personally, I drink these 100 cal nutrition drinks for breakfast, or have a banana, and a sparkling water. I've settled on - Very lightweight breakfast (~100 cal) - Light lunch (~700 cal) - Heavy dinner (~1400 cal) - Hard liquor only (tall single vodka/soda is my goto) You'll notice that's over 2000~ a day. I also walk a lot, use an exercise bike instead of the couch when watching TV, and bicycle everywhere I can. On lazy days, I adjust downwards. One thing I've done that's helped a lot is eating a low carb diet - I did keto, found it was incredible effective in losing weight, but kinda brutal. Instead, a low carb (non-ketosis) diet allows for some carbs but significantly reduces "empty calories".
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Well, if your going to help us all lose serious weight via CICO, I think having a big snack here and there is more than deserved. After all, shooting any significant amount of the planet's crust into space is definitely hungry work...
elil17 4y ago
I would say that overhauling your diet/relationship with food is really not what it's about. It's about gathering the necessary energy, resources, etc. to start putting significant amounts of Earth's mass on an escape trajectory.
francisofascii 4y ago
> weight loss is simple. It's very difficult Wait, which one is it? Simple or very difficult. Lol. I think you meant the calorie math is simple.
- Kranar 4y ago
  The opposite of simple is not difficult, it's complex. The opposite of difficult is not simple, it's easy. Simplicity has to do with the effort needed to understand something, difficulty has to do with the effort needed to perform an action. It's not unusual that something that requires little effort to understand requires a great deal of effort to execute.

elil17 4y ago

CICO is absolutely true, that's a fact. All you have to do is look at the basic physics. If you reduce the mass of the Earth by 50% (without decreasing your distance from Earths center, a common trap people fall into when they're trying to lose weight), you will lose 50% of your weight. Fad diets and "body mass" are, excuse my harsh language, B.S. Yes they can contribute to weight loss but they are going to let you lose 10 or 15 pounds tops. Reducing the weight of the Earth, on the other hand, can get you to lose essentially any amount of weight.

pydry 4y ago
The trick to giving up cigarattes is not lighting them, putting in your mouth and inhaling the smoke. CICO certainly isnt false.
screye 4y ago
I love how you're committed to the bit now.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  It's the same bit as the article itself, right?
  - elil17 4y ago
    Yes LOL
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      I know you know, I was trying to see if the other commenter does
      - screye 4y ago
        What is an article ? Is that the top comment you see below the title when you open an HN post ?

jahnu 4y ago

There are different ways to measure calories. In a calorimeter you can measure all the calories in some stuff. In your body the amount of calories available to your body to digest is some amount less depending on what that stuff is. This can vary from foodstuff to foodstuff by (iirc) about 1-15% So one could be more accurate and say Available CaloriesICO I guess Unless you are an athlete or have some condition the simple CICO rule is accurate enough to be useful. Eat less, move more, and weight will be lost (or at least gains will slow). None of this says anything about each person’s own life challenges that alter how difficult it is to do that.

Scoundreller 4y ago
Wouldnt the undigested calories just get added into calories out?
foobarian 4y ago
Now that you mention it, I'm pretty sure modern calorimeters won't catch the energy available via nuclear reactions. What if our digestive tracts have evolved some as-of-yet undiscovered mechanism to tap into that energy, thereby invalidating all the "CICO" people's claims? Now that would be a real pickle.
- jahnu 4y ago
  Hark at Nibbler!
elil17 4y ago
I think that the energy density of rocket fuel is pretty easy to measure. If you're trying to do a food powered rocket it's true the energy measurements could get more complicated.

bluGill 4y ago

CICO is still true. While some foods can increase metabolism (the other reply suggested up to 10% - sounds reasonable to me), that is an increase in calories out. You can also increase metabolism by exercising, or some drugs.

tsimionescu 4y ago
What exactly does food have to do with CICO? You're certainly not going to get very far at ejecting the earth's crust by burning food...
- brippalcharrid 4y ago
  There's no reason why certain physically and calorifically dense foods (eg. Christmas pudding) couldn't necessarily be combined with oxidizers and fitted into solid rocket motors, which could then be used to launch significant chunks of the earth's crust out of its gravity well.
  - selimthegrim 4y ago
    That’s not why I nicknamed my chili recipe Red Mercury.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]