3 ms·

> assuming you understand thermodynamics Even in a car engine having different kinds of fuels changes how much of it gets converted to energy. Your body is in

> assuming you understand thermodynamics Even in a car engine having different kinds of fuels changes how much of it gets converted to energy. Your body is infitely more complex than a car. Calories in calories out is not an immutable law. If that were the case, you could binge eat 30,000 calories and then you'd somehow add 28,000 calories worth of fat to your body in one day, which just isnt how that works.

dragonwriter 2y ago
> Calories in calories out is not an immutable law. It actually can be, if you define both "in" and "out" in a way which makes it so; but for any definition of those terms where it is an immutable law, we, in practice, have only very rough proxy measures for at least one, and maybe both, of "calories in" or "calories out", and the problem then becomes mistaking the proxy for the actual figure of merit. But the bigger problem is that CICO is only a starting point, it a set of targets, and an actionable plan that works in the real world isn't just the targets the plan is directed at.
- from-nibly 2y ago
  Yes agreed. Obviously molecules are not appearing out of thin air.
hilux 2y ago
I know that CICO has been debunked, but I've never seen such a wonderfully clear example as in your last sentence. Thank you!
- hodder 2y ago
  CICO has not been debunked at all. If you take it to the extremes like eating 30k cals in a day yes your body will pass much of it undigested, but that doesn’t debunk it at all but rather adjust one of the 2 inputs into the equation, and for the vast vast majority of people following anything resembling a sane diet, CICO is the determinant of weight loss. You can eat straight sugar in a caloric deficit and body weight will fall off of you. You can eat straight fat or protein and it’ll do the same. You can eat in one meal or 20 meals. It still holds in every single study ever done.
- kbelder 2y ago
  And yet, increasing calories will cause you to gain weight; cutting calories will cause you to lose weight; increasing activity will cause you to lose weight; and decreasing activity will cause you to gain weight. Yes, it's complicated and there's subtleties; but CICO is the main truth of dieting, and trying to downplay its primacy is misguided or deceptive.
  - hilux 2y ago
    Do you follow this field at all? (I do - very closely.) Did you bother to google before replying? Obviously not. Why do you (and the other guy above you) feel the need to argue even when some topic is completely outside your expertise? Why not open your mind to a new idea and learn something? > but CICO is the main truth of dieting It's certainly what most physicians and most >25 BMI people believe. And how's that working out? (Think about it before you hit the trigger finger: how. is. CICO. working. out?)
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - kbelder 2y ago
      >how. is. CICO. working. out? Fine!
      - hodder 2y ago
        Yes it’s literally the only thing that causes weight loss over time outside of water fluctuations etc. The poster above you is the kind of clueless huckster I mentioned in my main post. No evidence. All BS. Hitchens principle applies: that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

dragonwriter 2y ago

> Calories in calories out is not an immutable law. It actually can be, if you define both "in" and "out" in a way which makes it so; but for any definition of those terms where it is an immutable law, we, in practice, have only very rough proxy measures for at least one, and maybe both, of "calories in" or "calories out", and the problem then becomes mistaking the proxy for the actual figure of merit. But the bigger problem is that CICO is only a starting point, it a set of targets, and an actionable plan that works in the real world isn't just the targets the plan is directed at.

from-nibly 2y ago
Yes agreed. Obviously molecules are not appearing out of thin air.

hilux 2y ago

I know that CICO has been debunked, but I've never seen such a wonderfully clear example as in your last sentence. Thank you!

hodder 2y ago
CICO has not been debunked at all. If you take it to the extremes like eating 30k cals in a day yes your body will pass much of it undigested, but that doesn’t debunk it at all but rather adjust one of the 2 inputs into the equation, and for the vast vast majority of people following anything resembling a sane diet, CICO is the determinant of weight loss. You can eat straight sugar in a caloric deficit and body weight will fall off of you. You can eat straight fat or protein and it’ll do the same. You can eat in one meal or 20 meals. It still holds in every single study ever done.
kbelder 2y ago
And yet, increasing calories will cause you to gain weight; cutting calories will cause you to lose weight; increasing activity will cause you to lose weight; and decreasing activity will cause you to gain weight. Yes, it's complicated and there's subtleties; but CICO is the main truth of dieting, and trying to downplay its primacy is misguided or deceptive.
- hilux 2y ago
  Do you follow this field at all? (I do - very closely.) Did you bother to google before replying? Obviously not. Why do you (and the other guy above you) feel the need to argue even when some topic is completely outside your expertise? Why not open your mind to a new idea and learn something? > but CICO is the main truth of dieting It's certainly what most physicians and most >25 BMI people believe. And how's that working out? (Think about it before you hit the trigger finger: how. is. CICO. working. out?)
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - kbelder 2y ago
    >how. is. CICO. working. out? Fine!
    - hodder 2y ago
      Yes it’s literally the only thing that causes weight loss over time outside of water fluctuations etc. The poster above you is the kind of clueless huckster I mentioned in my main post. No evidence. All BS. Hitchens principle applies: that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.