4 ms·
> Given the observational evidence that it doesn't work I think you need to be very careful about your language choice here. Physics says it has to work. Ever
by grecy 2y ago
> Given the observational evidence that it doesn't work
I think you need to be very careful about your language choice here.
Physics says it has to work. Every athlete on earth knows it works. Everyone that has ever been in a prison camp, concentration camp or had their calories restricted outside of their control knows it works.
It absolutely, factually, 100% works. Our entire understand of mammals and energy depends on it working.
What you are saying, is that people are unable to exercise enough self-control to actually consume less calories. If they did, it would work. But they don't.
That's like saying "pointers in C don't work" because when many people try they get seg faults.
I really don't think it's constructive to say "CICO doesn't work" when what you mean is "many people find CICO difficult to implement, because having the self-control/will power/determination/control to do that is hard."
I became heavily involved in weight watchers (which is essentially just CICO - their "points formula" is basically calories/50). Over many years I watched hundreds of people lose hundreds of pounds by being careful about what they ate. It was hard. There were a lot of tears, there were a lot of false starts and plateaus and hard times.
The people that stuck with it had incredible transformations and live different lives now. My room mate at the time lost almost 200lbs and became head of the WW in that city and when I saw her after 10 years I did not recognize her at all, and actually refused to believe it was her for 5 minutes.
CICO absolutely works. Like most things worth doing in life, it's hard. And it's worth it.
- grayhatter 2y ago[flagged]
- grecy 2y ago[flagged]
- dang 2y agoPlease don't cross into flamewar like this and please don't get into tit-for-tat spats. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. When people start arguing over who said what, who did what to the discussion, and get increasingly personal about it, it was time to stop quite a while ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 2y agoPlease don't cross into flamewar like this and please don't get into tit-for-tat spats. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. When people start arguing over who said what, who did what to the discussion, and get increasingly personal about it, it was time to stop quite a while ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- grayhatter 2y agoI feel this is an unfair characterization. Which part of my response crossed into flamewar territory? Or is this preemptive because the discussion is trending in that direction?
- dang 2y ago"It seems like you stopped reading", for starters.
- grayhatter 2y agobah! :( I don't understand how I'm supposed to call attention to the parts of my previous comments that were important to being understood, but disregarded in the reply if that is what was wholly inappropriate. Other than to not reply at all when previous comments are misunderstood or ignored.
- tptacek 2y agoNot replying is usually the strongest rhetorical move, for what it's worth. Long threads implicitly elevate the other side of the argument. If you're trying to dispositively conclude a debate, make your case once, dispassionately, and then don't restate anything you've already said.