> Your understanding of CICO (or at least the point I am making about it) is wrong in your “B” paragraph. Just to clarify B is not cico, it's the inference tha

> Your understanding of CICO (or at least the point I am making about it) is wrong in your “B” paragraph. Just to clarify B is not cico, it's the inference that you seems to make from CICO. > For every individual, at any given time, there is a metabolic rate M for which, if their calorie intake was larger than that, they’d gain weight, and if their calorie intake was smaller, they’d lose weight. Crucially, M changes over time This is "not" the definition of CICO, and again does not follow from CICO. CICO is fundamentally a thermodynamic statement about the observed state of a system. You are making predictive statement about a possible future state of the system. Again, if you want to believe that statement that's fine. The point i am making is just it's does not follow from cico, no have i seen anything empirically that validate that statement. > Since M is determined by empirical observations of your weight loss/gain in response to the calories you have consumed, you will by definition lose weight if you consume less than M calories. sure this derived from your "definition" of CICO... but your definition is not thermodynamically derived... > This is the argument that CICO must work by definition the premise (the definition of the argument) is flawed. > It’s a logical contradiction for it not to work. Not really, CICO not working (as in this case) can be just the result of sound logic based on bad premises.