The Worst Nutrition Advice in History (article)

Your argument, on the other hand, is very circular. Well, if you see a weight loss, then you're in a deficit. If you see no weight loss, you're not in a deficit. If you were in a deficit (as evidenced by prior weight loss), start a medication and stop losing or even gain, then the out side of the equation has changed, so CICO is still true. You can just dump everything into the "out" side of the equation and use it as a catchall. Very circular.

If something falls onto your head, it's a certainty that before that, it was above your head. It's using basic laws like gravity and the fact that objects in motion tend to stay in motion, and the knowledge that objects don't magically teleport across the universe, to isolate possible scenarios that could have produced what was observed.

By saying this isn't true, what you're saying is that it's possible to gain energy while on a caloric deficit. That isn't what "deficit" means. So yes it's "circular" because the two things are synonyms.

What I'm saying is that the equation is more complicated, for good reason. And when you see dramatic weight gains and losses, especially in a short amount of time, I highly doubt that is due to incredible increases or decreases in metabolic burn as metabolic adaptation is something that generally happens slowly (and why that whole starvation mode thing is nonsense). So, if we're still seeing these things in certain circumstances -- like insulin resistance, or certain medications -- then there is another explanation for them -- the biochemical reactions taking place in the body aren't being fully accounted for in such simple math. Either the assumptions upon which CICO is based are flawed or thrown off from certain biochemical reactions or our understanding of it is inaccurate or incomplete. It's really not that complicated.

If someone gains a bunch of fat molecules and their intake did not change, there is only one reasonable explanation for where those lipid molecules came from. Their "out" HAS TO have drastically decreased. It's really not that complicated. If you think it hasn't then again, PLEASE provide an explanation for where this energy has come from.

What energy you ask? Why, the energy that is stored in the lipid molecules which were not a part of the person's body before all this weight gain. Because, you see, they contain more energy than the other arrangements of their constituent atoms/molecules like CO2 and H2O, and if they weren't prior arranged in such a fashion, the energy to rearrange them into lipid molecules HAS TO have come from somewhere. This process doesn't just randomly happen, it REQUIRES energy in order to happen. And that energy CANNOT simply appear from the aether or be delivered by a leprechaun riding a unicorn. That is indeed a fundamental law known as conservation of mass/energy.

So despite the fact that you keep denying it, by saying that something could cause someone to gain fat without increasing their intake or decreasing their output, you are in fact saying that the energy in those lipid molecules is coming from nowhere.

A calorie is simply a unit of measure – compare it to a mile, another simple unit of measure. Is a mile always a mile? Sure, in a 1 dimensional sense. But is traveling a mile under water the same as traveling a mile through the air? Is running a mile uphill in the snow the same as running a mile on an indoor track? Of course not – the world isn’t just a flat surface on a map, nor are the chemical complexity\ies of different foods just numbers on a label on the side of a food container that can be entirely accounted for using simple math.

But, the miles and miles are close enough that a marathon is the same difference no matter where it's held. There are faster courses and slower courses, but, as far as I know, 95% of the training will be the same.

Sure, just go ahead and ignore the Lorentz contraction, if you are satisfied with an approximation.

Lol

" This effect is negligible at everyday speeds, and can be ignored for all regular purposes. Only at greater speeds does it become relevant."

So, basically - if you are a body builder or have a metabolic disorder, you need to pay attention to the details. For the rest of us, calorie = calories is good enough.

Sure, you can ignore it if you're one of those special slowflakes who never approach the speed of light.

One day you will be my friend

Wonderrob -- I totally agree. I think CICO is very useful for most people and a good guideline for good reasons. I just don't think it is necessarily a linear, black-and-white thing. There is a reason people suggest a certain rate of weight loss per week (usually 0.25-2 lbs max, except in very obese people). There is a point where greater deficit yields less return, though the reasons aren't quite clear from what I've read.

Some hypothesize that it has to do with stress hormones. That once you get to too large of a deficit, your body reacts by increasing hormones like cortisol and other adrenal hormones, which makes your body less readily release fat. And, that's one of the reasons, that some suggest bumping up calories a little bit to get out of that stress zone and start losing weight again -- though it's totally counterintuitive if you're looking at purely CICO equation. Those that are strict adherents to CICO will say, "no, you're not in a deficit." And, I'm not so sure that's always the answer, and it such thinking can lead into the metabolic damage path.

How can the self-proclaimed smartest person in the universe not know what "deficit" means?

It's not counterintuitive at all. We aren't machines. We are biological systems with feedback loops. These biological triggers can play with CI or CO in order to maintain homeostasis/health/life.

So far on this page:

Lipid molecules
CHO
Cortisol
Adrenal hormones
Lorentz contraction
Homeostasis

:frown:

I'm almost embarrassed to admit that I'm just adopting the 'eat less, exercise more' approach!

In fact, when I'm next asked how I've been getting in shape, I'm going to say "Well, I've simply contracted my Lorentz to Homeostasis my Lipid molecules so that my CHO is boosted by increasing Cortisol to my Adrenal hormones"

And hope that like me, they haven't a clue what I'm talking about!

Let's just take a step back for a sec. The underlying assumption of CICO is that the difference between CI and CO is what accounts for weight gain and weight loss, right? But, do you think there is a possibility that there is another factor other than merely the caloric deficit and/or burn that accounts for what weight is shed by the body (not including water fluctuations)? That there could be something else -- whether hormonal, intrinsic to certain foods, medication, etc. -- that either enhances or impedes that weight release?

Because when I look at studies like the one I cited earlier where there were dramatically different weight losses based on macronutrient diets and insulin sensitivity/resistance issues, that's the only thing I can think of to account for that. Because if it was all about calories in and calories out, the results should have been relatively similar -- at least among the same macronutrient diets. And yet, in both groups, one set lost nearly twice as much as the other. In insulin sensitive women, the high carb group lost nearly twice as much body weight as the high fat group. In insulin resistant women, it was the exact opposite -- the high fat group lost nearly twice as much body weight as the high carb group.

Perhaps the study is fundamentally flawed and so it's giving us erroneous results. But, that aside, what else accounts for such a huge difference? Chalking it all up to NEAT where you anticipate a loss based on a 400 daily caloric deficit but is shown to actually be an result closer to a 800 daily caloric deficit seems like a huge difference to me. Especially when we know that certain hormonal imbalances and vitamin deficiencies can impeded weight loss -- whether its excess cortisol, liver enzymes, thyroid, insufficient vitamin D, etc.

Now, I'm not saying that means that energy is created from nothing, just that weight loss may be more than merely the deficit calculation. Why is it such a crazy idea to think that there may be something else that either impedes or enhances weight loss other than the caloric expenditure/deficit?

To offer a convincing argument refuting CICO, you'd have to show that the body sometimes stored energy as fat in preference to using it to meet immediate metabolic needs.

It's not 'any number of things' though. There are many things that can effect either side of the equation, yes. But the equation is still valid. Calories in must be less than calories out in order to lose weight. That is the simple beauty of it. It is so simple, that it confounds many people.

Yes. It's so simple it obviously confounds you.

CICO is not an equation. An equation would be CI - CO = CD (where CD is Caloric Deficit).

You admit that other things can factor either side of the "equation," yet you fail to see that CICO is incomplete. If other things can affect the equation, those things are factors, and they ought to be factored in to the equation. To ignore them is to have an incomplete equation.

I stand by what I said earlier: We should follow CICO (or CI - CO = CD). IF it doesn't work for some of us, we should try to find out why, because there is some other unaccounted for factor messing up the simple equation.

And the rest of us should not be judging those people having trouble or trying to impose our simpleton ideas on others.

I have made many posts pointing out that the different sides of the equation (and yes, I know what an equation is, and CICO is an equation, despite my not having implicitly typed out any mathematical symbols) will vary depending on the person. Varying a simple equation does not make it less simple. Figuring out the in and out sides of the simple equation may take some trial and error.

Actually, wouldn't the equation be CI < CO = CD? After all, you're trying to show that the calories out (CO) are greater than the calories in (CI). THAT'S what equals the calorie deficit. If the equation is calories in minus calories out equals calorie deficit, it's not necessarily true, unless the CI is less than the CO, which would leave a negative number.

Example: 1200 calories in - 300 calories out = 900 calories, which is not a deficit, so this is not a true statement.
of course, it COULD be 1200 calories in - 1500 calories out = deficit, which is true but not necessarily, depending upon the variables.

But, for CI < CO = CD, CI must be a smaller number than CO to make the statement true.
Example 1200 calories in < (less than) 1500 calories out = a deficit of 300 calories, which is also a true statement.

In your first example, neither of those can be true. If you end up with a deficit, the person will lose weight. The same for your second example. There is no scenario possible where a true deficit exists, and the person does not lose weight eventually.

There is no scenario possible where a true deficit exists, and the person does not lose weight eventually.

Yeah that's hard to argue with. However would you concede that there are scenarios where a true calorie surplus exists and the person does not gain weight eventually

Meh. Uninteresting. He is citing extreme diets (no eggs) and inventing strawmen (high carb diet for diabetics is bad - no duh!).

At least one of the government suggestions he complains about has already been reversed "5. Replace Natural Butter With Processed, Trans Fat Laden Margarine" Now the gov't is against transfats.

If you write enough, you will pull in some people.