[QUOTE=RichMahogany;1148865]I'm serious about the fact that you misunderstand the very CICO argument you claim to support.
Your post is an excellent re-statement of (at least part of) the alternative hypothesis.
That being said, I kind of think you come off as an a-hole when you tell people to eat less and move around more. Because you know it's not so simple (as demonstrated above).[/QUOTE]
You are wrong. My post clearly says CICO = fact. You keep trying to bring hunger into it. What does hunger have to do with calories?
Every one of your posts is a straw man.
[QUOTE=RichMahogany;1148892]Gain or loss of mass is [I]defined [/I]as the calorie surplus or deficit consumed. But they're dependent variables. The type of calories you eat affects the amount of calories you expend. And the type of expenditure affects the amount you eat. And the type of calories you eat affects the amount you eat (as Choco noted above). They're complex, interrelated figures that are regulated by mechanisms beyond our control and precise understanding.
So the prescription for weight loss isn't so simple as "eat less, move more." It's eat smarter, move smarter.[/QUOTE]
The inability to measure your calories properly does not discount CICO.
The inability for you to control your consumption does not discount CICO.
A variable TDEE does not discount CICO.
They are entirely different arguments. CICO is always law. Enough with the straw men. You may be able to control your hunger better eating nothing but steak and eggs. So what? If you consume more than you expend you will gain weight regardless of food source. CICO every time.
Eat less, move more. Every time. Your definition of "eat smarter" is to eat more satiating foods so you eat less. You're contradicting yourself over and over.
[SIZE=5][B]Gwammas palms are twitching.............[/B][/SIZE]
[QUOTE=RichMahogany;1148923]It's the same when a middle-aged woman grows fatter. Telling her to eat less and get more exercise (CICO dogma) is putting more blame on her than she likely deserves.[/QUOTE]
Huh? How's telling someone to eat less is "putting more blame on her"?
If she wants to stop growing fatter she'll have to [B]do something[/B], change something in her life. Eating less and moving more sounds like an excellent start.
[QUOTE=ChocoTaco369;1148924]CICO is not a theory, it is a law. If you disagree, you are wrong. [/I][/U][/B][/QUOTE]
CICO as a description is perfectly accurate. It's like saying a room full of people is that way because more people entered it than left. It doesn't tell you [I]why[/I] the people want to be in the room. Is there a free buffet? Concert? Are they chained to the walls by an evildoer? (analogy stolen from Peter Attia and bastardized by me)
CICO dogma, however, says that it's simple to lose weight. Just do the math. Buy a food scale. Calculate your BMR, look at the calorie output meter on the treadmill, and eat a little less than you expend, and you'll lose weight.
But people aren't bomb calorimeters, and CICO dogma is fail.
In other words, CICO is a description, not a prescription. This is another issue (like the butter thing) where you continually talk out both sides of your mouth.
You can't defend CICO dogma by using the laws of Thermodynamics because nobody (with half a brain) is [I]denying[/I] the laws of Thermodynamics.
In other words, you're the one with the straw man. Mis-stating and then disputing the alternative hypothesis = straw man.
Blah blah strawman blah blah paleo blah banality blah blah blah CICO blah Grok blah blah bulletproof blah fat blah blah fructose blah devil blah blah ketones.
So fucking boring.
I think the first step is to remove the garbage that sends a body mixed signals. So... cake, which has some addictive wheat, sugar, kind of a soothing effect on people sends mixed signals. We eat it for many reasons, and generally not because we are hungry or need nutrients from it.
So yes, steak is more satisfying than cake because cake is never meant to satisfy our need for nutrition. But once you start lumping all carbs together and eliminate them all, some people start overeating random foods - like steak and fat because they mistake their body asking for some fruits or starch to satisfy need for certain nutrients or fuel with the reason we eat cake.
You can get to a point where carbs are as satiating as protein or fat. Case in point- how many people eat 500 calories of nuts when what they really needed was a banana. Sometimes carbs hit the spot.
We equate carbs with junk food that also have a heaping helping of fat that makes them palatable and addicting.
For most people, eliminate the processed crap and anything your body can't handle (gluten, dairy), then learn to listen to what your body wants in terms of whole foods. It's not better to eat 16 ounces of steak versus 2 sweet potatoes. It's not better to eat 3 apples versus a tablespoon of butter. The best path is to give your body what it is craving and not try and "work around" cravings for basically healthy foods because someone says "fruit is bad" or "eating fat is bad". But make sure you actually need it.
In the past 3 months, I've gotten really astute to listening to my body and determining what macros I need and it kind of cycles. I've had a lot of carbs this week, now I want fat. Last week, I ate a ton of protein. It's such a different feeling from cravings in the past for junk foods.
[QUOTE=Lumifer;1148938]Huh? How's telling someone to eat less is "putting more blame on her"?
If she wants to stop growing fatter she'll have to [B]do something[/B], change something in her life. Eating less and moving more sounds like an excellent start.[/QUOTE]
Except she's likely already starving and listless because her adipose tissue is insatiable and her satiety signaling mechanisms are broken. And she's depleted in essential nutrients and will never feel full.
See the following diagrams:
[url=http://www.caloriegate.com/i-want-to-know-why-calories-dont-count]The Black Box: A NEW Way of Thinking about Fat Loss | Escape From Caloriegate[/url]
[QUOTE=RichMahogany;1148943]CICO dogma, however, says that it's simple to lose weight. Just do the math. Buy a food scale. Calculate your BMR, look at the calorie output meter on the treadmill, and eat a little less than you expend, and you'll lose weight.[/QUOTE]
That's a strawman.
CICO (in the people-with-more-than-half-a-brain version) says that the ONLY way to lose weight is to output more energy than you intake. The problem is that your energy output varies, a lot, and outside of a metabolic ward it's really hard to track it properly (BMR calculations are pretty useless). That insistence, while obvious, is necessary because there are people (look around on this very board) who'll tell you that with proper macro ratios (or magic protein powder, or fat, or something) calories do not matter at all.
One consequence of CICO is that "eat less" advice IS GUARANTEED TO WORK if you're willing to go into starvation mode. Issues of willpower and health aside, it's physical inevitability that at some level of "eat less" you will lose weight. That's a useful characteristic, rare in the dieting world :-)