3 ms·
> You do have me intrigued, what are you general arguments against CICO? Not the GP, but based on their abstinence-only sex comment I imagine the point being r
by jghn 1y ago
> You do have me intrigued, what are you general arguments against CICO?
Not the GP, but based on their abstinence-only sex comment I imagine the point being raised is that it's something that is technically true but not a practical guideline.
CICO is a true statement. But you're not going to be able to accurately measure CI and especially not CO. So why bother using that as your guideline on how to proceed? Instead it is known and understood that there are mechanisms for things such as improving CO efficiency, and it's much more practical to focus on that.
- coffeebeqn 1y agoShouldn’t you at least have a ballpark correct CI and CO numbers? If you’re doing +1000 calories per day then whatever CO efficiencies you find won’t do anything
- jvanderbot 1y agoHere's one more. CICO ignores the effects of the types of food (CI) and activities (CO) that might make you hungry quicker than others, for example from sugar or fatigue or anything else. Appetite control is very difficult. Those soft factors make it poor guidance as well.
- jghn 1y ago> CICO ignores the effects It doesn't though, at the end of the day there's an objective amount of CI and an objective amount of CO. Further, CO isn't just "activities", for instance you burn calories merely by existing. Things you're describing will impact CI and CO, but at the end of the day if one had the ability to fully and 100% accurately measure CI & CO it'd be apparent that the math works. But this is why "it's just CICO" is at best a tricky phrase. Because the hard part is in the nuance you describe.
- jvanderbot 1y agoI get this over and over on every issue where "math" becomes "guidance". Let me try to bridge by restating: Math truth is not always good policy guidance. It is true that CI==CO. It must. It is not true that telling someone that CI==CO is a good way to get them to manage their weight, because (as mentioned) it's hard to measure and (as I added) even if you measure correctly, you _reduce likelihood of compliance_ by ignoring appetite effects when you call all calories equal. I think we agree, just trying to find the right words anyway.
- jghn 1y agoExactly, yes we agree. It's why I think the debate is inane from both angles. CICO is both true and yet not useful.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- snkzxbs 1y ago[flagged]
- jvanderbot 1y agoRight, so, that's what I'm saying. If you don't tell people to do that you're not giving good advice.
- tekla 1y agoYou can't outrun your fork (Of course some smart guy will bring up Olympic level athletes, but we're not freaking talking about Olympic level athletes are we? A 5K run for 30m burns ~300-600 calories. A single serving of a candy bar is ~250 calories. You NEED to restrict the CI portion since its the easiest part of the equation to control.
- jghn 1y agoIndeed. But it cuts both ways. The typical person who is maligning CICO because it doesn't explain why they're still fat, that person would do much better by better focusing on CICO and performing the all time best exercise for weight loss - the "table push away" Meanwhile the typical strict advocate of CICO as the end all be all also needs to understand that there's a lot of nuance in both the CI and CO variables.