Discover what's new & improved in the MyFitnessPal app!
We’re dedicated to helping you achieve your health and nutrition goals. And our newest features and updates? They do just that. Learn how we're making tracking your progress easier, faster, and more motivating than ever.

CICO, It's a math formula

Options
1212224262731

Replies

  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    A_Rene86 wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.

    However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.

    The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.

    Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.

    (I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)

    So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?

    One does not "use" CICO. CICO is simply the equation that describes energy balance. Methods of achieving energy balance, i.e. calorie counting and/or keto, etc. are not CICO.

    I think this about EIEO is basically the same as CICO perhaps? They talk about energy imbalance in humans and get into some actual causes of energy imbalances.

    https://nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/causes

    Your source states that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. I'm glad you seem to agree. As for the genetic disorders listed that cause overweight or obesity, they impact a tiny percentage of the world's population:

    Cohen syndrome: diagnosed in less than 1,000 people worldwide
    Bardet-Biedl syndrome: 1 in 140,000-160,000 worldwide
    Prader-Willi syndrome: 1 in 10,000-30,000 worldwide
    Alstrom syndrome: Less than 1,000 people worldwide

    ETA: endocrine disorders:

    Hypothyroid: 1 in 3,000-4,000 people
    Cushing disease: 10-15 people per million

    @3bambi3 everyone that logs on to MFP knows that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. :)

    Look at that! And only 19 short pages for you to agree with the original post.

    @A_Rene86 based on professionals sources in links posted in this thread I personally see the original post to be mainly fake news that can be harmful new MFP members and the cause of MFP owners in general.

    I'll bite. How do you feel the information shared in the OP is harmful to new members, and to "the cause of MFP owners in general"? Who is that last part referring to? Under Armour?

    The last sentence is false when talking about humans and diet. I do not know who the owners are.
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    A_Rene86 wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.

    However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.

    The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.

    Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.

    (I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)

    So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?

    One does not "use" CICO. CICO is simply the equation that describes energy balance. Methods of achieving energy balance, i.e. calorie counting and/or keto, etc. are not CICO.

    I think this about EIEO is basically the same as CICO perhaps? They talk about energy imbalance in humans and get into some actual causes of energy imbalances.

    https://nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/causes

    Your source states that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. I'm glad you seem to agree. As for the genetic disorders listed that cause overweight or obesity, they impact a tiny percentage of the world's population:

    Cohen syndrome: diagnosed in less than 1,000 people worldwide
    Bardet-Biedl syndrome: 1 in 140,000-160,000 worldwide
    Prader-Willi syndrome: 1 in 10,000-30,000 worldwide
    Alstrom syndrome: Less than 1,000 people worldwide

    ETA: endocrine disorders:

    Hypothyroid: 1 in 3,000-4,000 people
    Cushing disease: 10-15 people per million

    @3bambi3 everyone that logs on to MFP knows that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. :)

    Look at that! And only 19 short pages for you to agree with the original post.

    @A_Rene86 based on professionals sources in links posted in this thread I personally see the original post to be mainly fake news that can be harmful new MFP members and the cause of MFP owners in general.

    I'll bite. How do you feel the information shared in the OP is harmful to new members, and to "the cause of MFP owners in general"? Who is that last part referring to? Under Armour?

    The last sentence is false when talking about humans and diet. I do not know who the owners are.

    So you only disagree with the final sentence in the OP?
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    Options
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    A_Rene86 wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.

    However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.

    The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.

    Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.

    (I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)

    So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?

    One does not "use" CICO. CICO is simply the equation that describes energy balance. Methods of achieving energy balance, i.e. calorie counting and/or keto, etc. are not CICO.

    I think this about EIEO is basically the same as CICO perhaps? They talk about energy imbalance in humans and get into some actual causes of energy imbalances.

    https://nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/causes

    Your source states that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. I'm glad you seem to agree. As for the genetic disorders listed that cause overweight or obesity, they impact a tiny percentage of the world's population:

    Cohen syndrome: diagnosed in less than 1,000 people worldwide
    Bardet-Biedl syndrome: 1 in 140,000-160,000 worldwide
    Prader-Willi syndrome: 1 in 10,000-30,000 worldwide
    Alstrom syndrome: Less than 1,000 people worldwide

    ETA: endocrine disorders:

    Hypothyroid: 1 in 3,000-4,000 people
    Cushing disease: 10-15 people per million

    @3bambi3 everyone that logs on to MFP knows that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. :)

    Look at that! And only 19 short pages for you to agree with the original post.

    @A_Rene86 based on professionals sources in links posted in this thread I personally see the original post to be mainly fake news that can be harmful new MFP members and the cause of MFP owners in general.

    I'll bite. How do you feel the information shared in the OP is harmful to new members, and to "the cause of MFP owners in general"? Who is that last part referring to? Under Armour?

    The last sentence is false when talking about humans and diet. I do not know who the owners are.

    So you only disagree with the final sentence in the OP?

    My thoughts on the entire original post are stated above.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    psuLemon wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    CICO applies to my cat (who, I am pretty sure, does not count calories). When you read advice about helping a cat lose weight, it's all about calorie control and making sure the cat is active. Dealing with an overweight cat can be difficult, because the cat will change activity level if food is cut back. Some cats naturally eat what they need and no more, but others will overeat if they can. (You should also feed them food appropriate for a cat, but I think that's a given and it doesn't necessarily prevent a cat from overeating. Some just love food and aren't naturally active enough.)

    Here's the Dr. Attia thing, paraphrased: "A person has gained weight. I know that person has taken in more calories than he or she has burned. I know that's true, but it is not what I specifically am interested in. What I specifically am interested in is why did that person take in more calories than that person burned?

    If my goal, as a weight loss guru, is to help people NOT gain weight (note: I am being charitable here), I need to understand what causes people to consume more calories than they burn (or to burn fewer calories than they consume). Merely knowing that they did is not enough for this purpose."

    So, as an initial matter, claiming that that somehow debunks CICO or the first post in this thread is obviously false. Attia is saying that CICO is obviously true, but that OP's point is not what he, specifically, is interested in, and I guess it's not what you are interested in, Gale.

    This reminds me of an old book forum I used to participate in. People would start threads to talk about a particular book or author, let's say Faulkner. Someone else might not think Faulkner was interesting to discuss, and wouldn't discuss his books in the thread. You, however, are behaving like someone who jumps in the thread and says that you don't think Faulkner is interesting at all, and proceeds to tell everyone that they should be talking about Philip Roth, and then starts posting comments from people who have opinions about how Roth is more relevant to current events or their specific interests than Faulkner.

    Beyond that, Attia seems to think there's some one answer as to why people overeat that can be fixed. (I suspect it comes down to evil carbs.) I think that's obviously wrong -- if it was that easy, obesity would have been cured. The fact is that everyone needs to figure out what, for them, helps them not overeat. For example, leangogreen said that drinking more water than she otherwise would helped her. That's important for her to know and wonderful. It would not help me. But certain things I do would likely not help jo, because we are different.

    What we do both know, and is a good starting place, and for us (although sure, not everyone) was a good, helpful starting place, is that the goal needs to be making CI less than CO if we want to lose weight. How to do that is up to us. That Attia doesn't think that's enough to help us doesn't matter much, since I am not asking him to cure me (I don't need to be cured) but figuring out for myself what helps me control CI and CO in a way that is effective for my goals (currently to maintain or lose a few vanity lbs while training for a marathon).

    What I find interesting... for a large part, Dr. Attia is one of the more reasonable people who folllow LCHF. I haven't seen too many extreme response from the several blog post that I have read. In fact, I have enjoyed many of his.

    Yeah, he may be fine. I think he was taken out of context, most likely.

    Hmm, following up on that, here's Attia (http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter) -- I agree with some stuff (and he DOES NOT debunk CICO or seem to be trying to do so), and disagree with other stuff:

    "Conventional wisdom, perhaps better referred to as Current Dogma, says that you gain weight because you eat more than you expend. This is almost true! To be 100% true, it would read: when you gain weight, it is the case that you have necessarily eaten more than you expended. Do you see the difference? It’s subtle but very important — arguably more important than any other sentence I will write. The first statement says over-eating caused you to get fat. The second one says if you got fat, you overate, but the possibility remains that another factor led to you to overeat."

    My note: putting myself in the position of someone needing to lose weight, I don't actually think this distinction is helpful or significant. It reads to me like a salve for someone who just cannot accept the idea that their own actions and choices are the cause of them gaining weight, and as such is quite similar to the kinds of things that make many weight-loss gurus popular: you didn't make yourself fat, BigFood made you fat. Also, as someone who mostly ate whole foods (and not a lot of highly refined carbs) when gaining, the idea that eating lots of low nutrient processed foods made me overeat and get fat just does not make sense and is kind of presumptuous.

    Moreover, even if I were someone who ate more of that sort of stuff (as I was in my mid to late 20s, but apparently not compared to the US average), I still wouldn't think the food made me fat or made me overeat, because I CHOSE what food to eat and when I decided to (for nutrition and health reasons) change what I ate, it was easy to do so. Well, not always easy -- I had to learn to cook better and have a plan about how to fit it in my life -- but not something that was outside the realm of "things one can choose to do if one cares about it." Indeed, WHY I decided to do this, in addition to caring about nutrition and health, is that I knew it would make it easier to control and lower calories (although I was not then counting), and it did. So contrary to what Attia suggests here, I would say that in my mid-to-late 20s I gained weight because I was overeating, and that in order to fix that problem I reduced calories in (in part by changing my food choices and habits) AND increased calories out (I realized I had become inactive -- for reasons NOT discussed by Attia -- and changed that too).

    Attia goes on to make a big point about how CO needs to include calories expended in digestion, and that what you eat makes a difference as to that amount. IMO -- and this was covered earlier in the thread -- within the range of a healthy and satisfying diet, it probably does not make that much difference. Increasing protein increases it a bit, but the average person in the US doesn't eat low protein, and there's a pretty set range of protein amount that makes sense, so it's not going to end up making that big a difference. Going from high carb (although average SAD is only about 50% carbs) to low carb will make little or no difference, since fat takes fewer calories to digest than anything else and refined carbs are close to the same. Higher fiber carbs like vegetables are, of course, a little higher, and high fiber foods can even be quite inefficient to digest, but I'd say whatever your diet or macro percentage you should be eating vegetables, so again this is not likely to make a lot of difference.

    Or, at most, it could make a difference if you are currently eating a terrible diet, but it's easy enough to get fat not eating a terrible diet, so you can't say that calories expended in digestion are a huge factor. But sure, yeah, they are part of the equation which does absolutely nothing to debunk OP's point or the usefulness of the CICO balance in weight loss.

    Attia also claims that a high carb meal is less likely to result in satiety than a high protein/fat meal. That's actually quite misleading and disingenuous, as it's mostly PROTEIN that matters and anyway people are different when it comes to satiety. For me, both high carb and high fat without protein suck for satiety, but high carb would be better. Both, however, are great, IF combined with adequate protein.

    Moving on again, Attia claims that obesity occurs because your body prioritizes the storage of fat over the use of fat. If we are assuming the same activity and CI, I think that's just not true. You can't store net fat if at a significant deficit (at a very slim deficit, yeah, the body can adjust metabolically, although you'd need conditions that led to that).

    He then goes on to say something that I kind of agree with: the question is whether the calories in create a condition where you want to consume more calories than you expend. Put more simply, he's talking about satiety and, perhaps, energy, how you feel. I think this matters, but I honestly think you have to be dumber than most (OR, more likely, other factors are at play) not to change what you eat if you find you are hungry. If I'm hungry and know I've already eaten a lot, and my ONLY concern is not being hungry and not overeating, I'll grab carrots or celery or something, wait 'til the meal, and think "geez, what I ate didn't seem to satisfy me, I'll rethink it." Similarly, if you feel low energy, changing what you eat makes sense.

    Why do people overeat, then? Well, because they aren't paying attention to how much they eat and eat more because something looks tempting than explicit hunger, IMO.

    Good example: when I was a kid and would say "mom, I'm hungry," she'd say "dinner is in 2 hours, wait." If I said "but I'm really hungry," she'd normally say "have a pickle" or "have a piece of fruit (but don't spoil dinner" or "have some carrots." That's what you do for hunger. But in my 20s sometimes I'd be at work late and be depressed and someone would say "let's order dinner from an Italian place as long as we have to be here, work will pay, and let's start with fried calamari and end with tiramisu." And I'd think "well, that's a way to improve the evening, and plus it sounds delicious." Was it because I was just so hungry or something was CAUSING me to overeat? Or was I choosing to overeat? I think the latter.

    Curious about responses from @psuLemon or others.

    I am in complete agreement with this.

    Taking a binary approach and polling those successful in achieving their goals on MFP the vast majority identifying personal behavior as the root cause in their overeating. Those who blame "Big Food", metabolic disorder, etc. are unsuccessful in achieving their goals, simply because they have not addressed the root cause.

    Why do people overeat? The same reason people overspend - they can and they are generally ignorant of how to maintain a budget.

    @lemurcat12 , I actually was agreeing with you earlier and was adding some more clarification. If it didn't come off that way, it was my fault. And I am fully in agreement with you and @CSARdiver

    I figured, just wanted to make sure I wasn't being read wrong. Sometimes the back and forth makes me paranoid about being misunderstood, heh.

    I actually thought of this this morning because I listened (while running) to a really good podcast -- it was Chris Kresser's podcast (I'm not that into him, but I like the podcast when he has good guests, and he probably is one of the more sensible of the paleo types) and the interview was of Stephan Guyenet, who I respect a lot. There was a good discussion of the importance of calories and the confusion of CICO as meaning that calorie balance determines weight loss/gain/maintenance (Guyenet said obviously so, and was quite strong) vs. it meaning that one needs to count calories (which Guyenet does not believe the general population does or realistically would). They then went on to macros and agreed that people who obsess about macros or sugar are wrong. They definitely think diet matters, but not because you gain independent of calories. Anyway, I'm not doing it justice and nothing ground-breaking, but it was a good discussion and I think I might read Guyenet's new book.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,413 MFP Moderator
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »

    I figured, just wanted to make sure I wasn't being read wrong. Sometimes the back and forth makes me paranoid about being misunderstood, heh.

    I actually thought of this this morning because I listened (while running) to a really good podcast -- it was Chris Kresser's podcast (I'm not that into him, but I like the podcast when he has good guests, and he probably is one of the more sensible of the paleo types) and the interview was of Stephan Guyenet, who I respect a lot. There was a good discussion of the importance of calories and the confusion of CICO as meaning that calorie balance determines weight loss/gain/maintenance (Guyenet said obviously so, and was quite strong) vs. it meaning that one needs to count calories (which Guyenet does not believe the general population does or realistically would). They then went on to macros and agreed that people who obsess about macros or sugar are wrong. They definitely think diet matters, but not because you gain independent of calories. Anyway, I'm not doing it justice and nothing ground-breaking, but it was a good discussion and I think I might read Guyenet's new book.

    Any links to the podcast?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    psuLemon wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »

    I figured, just wanted to make sure I wasn't being read wrong. Sometimes the back and forth makes me paranoid about being misunderstood, heh.

    I actually thought of this this morning because I listened (while running) to a really good podcast -- it was Chris Kresser's podcast (I'm not that into him, but I like the podcast when he has good guests, and he probably is one of the more sensible of the paleo types) and the interview was of Stephan Guyenet, who I respect a lot. There was a good discussion of the importance of calories and the confusion of CICO as meaning that calorie balance determines weight loss/gain/maintenance (Guyenet said obviously so, and was quite strong) vs. it meaning that one needs to count calories (which Guyenet does not believe the general population does or realistically would). They then went on to macros and agreed that people who obsess about macros or sugar are wrong. They definitely think diet matters, but not because you gain independent of calories. Anyway, I'm not doing it justice and nothing ground-breaking, but it was a good discussion and I think I might read Guyenet's new book.

    Any links to the podcast?

    https://chriskresser.com/why-your-brain-makes-you-fat-with-stephan-guyenet/
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    Options
    A_Rene86 wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Repeating: CICO is not calorie counting. You need not count, calculate, or (in the normal sense of the word) estimate calories in order to use CICO to lose weight. You need not know how many calories you eat. You need not know how many calories you burn. You cannot lose weight without 'using CICO'. Or gain weight, or maintain weight, for that matter. It's trivially true.

    However . . . employing it conciously and intentionally helps some people. A lot. Whether they count calories, or not.

    The arguments here about whether CO (or CI) are knowable, precise, accurate, etc., have more to do with whether calorie counting works. The many people who are successful here on MFP by using calorie counting would lead us to conclude that it does work . . . even if it's no more scientific than standing in a pentagram painted in blood on your basement floor, and sacrificing a virgin goat.

    Maybe calorie counting works by placebo effect, simply because We Believe.

    (I'm pretty sure it fails for some because they don't.)

    So basically if one does not use CICO they get put in a coffin to be buried or cremated?

    One does not "use" CICO. CICO is simply the equation that describes energy balance. Methods of achieving energy balance, i.e. calorie counting and/or keto, etc. are not CICO.

    I think this about EIEO is basically the same as CICO perhaps? They talk about energy imbalance in humans and get into some actual causes of energy imbalances.

    https://nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/causes

    Your source states that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. I'm glad you seem to agree. As for the genetic disorders listed that cause overweight or obesity, they impact a tiny percentage of the world's population:

    Cohen syndrome: diagnosed in less than 1,000 people worldwide
    Bardet-Biedl syndrome: 1 in 140,000-160,000 worldwide
    Prader-Willi syndrome: 1 in 10,000-30,000 worldwide
    Alstrom syndrome: Less than 1,000 people worldwide

    ETA: endocrine disorders:

    Hypothyroid: 1 in 3,000-4,000 people
    Cushing disease: 10-15 people per million

    @3bambi3 everyone that logs on to MFP knows that if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. :)

    Look at that! And only 19 short pages for you to agree with the original post.

    @A_Rene86 based on professionals sources in links posted in this thread I personally see the original post to be mainly fake news that can be harmful new MFP members and the cause of MFP owners in general.

    And you would be wrong.

    So very very wrong.

    But I must say, you take majoring in the minors/not seeing the forest for the trees to a whole new level.

    Then post links based on science that prove me wrong!

    Please say what your thoughts are? That CICO doesn't apply to some people? Or just that CICO doesn't explain why people over or under eat?

    How about your post professional sources that prove your thoughts? Why do we have to prove you are wrong? I believe I lost weight because of the purple unicorn that follows me around. Prove me wrong and cite at least 3 professionals.

    @mburgess458 I will repost the already posted professional sources that mirror my own readings on the subject so it does not require any clicking for a summary ASAP.

    You or no one has to prove me wrong but you will not find professional sources to prove other professional sources wrong that I have linked to above.

    CICO is a concept that applies to Closed Loop systems say like a car engine. A calorie is a unit of measure for sure but it does not tell one how much energy went into the bloodstream and how much of that energy was burned by the cells of our body. Some of the calories/energy that I eat pass out of my nose and out through my urine since I more or less stay in a state of nutritional ketosis for example.

    No one posting here can even compute their CICO so CICO as used on MFP forums is a concept not science as far as dieting goes. However one can determine net CICO only after the fact by just weighing themselves from time to time under the same conditions each time and record their weight from time to time.

    Yes it is true that CICO does not explain why people over or under eat. CICO is a favorite tool of some Fat Shamers.

    Next to no one plans to become obese. To become seriously overweight it is my take of reading research one must FIRST develop a health issue that leads to overeating. It may have a physical or mental aspect or both. I expect 100% of obese people have a Leaking Gut issue. When that dam starts leaking it will be downhill from there until the leaking gut can recover by stopping the eating of foods that may have initially started the leaking.

    I will work to get you the professional sources again that explain what is incorrect about the original post.

    Thanks
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »

    I figured, just wanted to make sure I wasn't being read wrong. Sometimes the back and forth makes me paranoid about being misunderstood, heh.

    I actually thought of this this morning because I listened (while running) to a really good podcast -- it was Chris Kresser's podcast (I'm not that into him, but I like the podcast when he has good guests, and he probably is one of the more sensible of the paleo types) and the interview was of Stephan Guyenet, who I respect a lot. There was a good discussion of the importance of calories and the confusion of CICO as meaning that calorie balance determines weight loss/gain/maintenance (Guyenet said obviously so, and was quite strong) vs. it meaning that one needs to count calories (which Guyenet does not believe the general population does or realistically would). They then went on to macros and agreed that people who obsess about macros or sugar are wrong. They definitely think diet matters, but not because you gain independent of calories. Anyway, I'm not doing it justice and nothing ground-breaking, but it was a good discussion and I think I might read Guyenet's new book.

    Any links to the podcast?

    https://chriskresser.com/why-your-brain-makes-you-fat-with-stephan-guyenet/

    That's one. We need two more.
This discussion has been closed.