CICO fallacy

Chrysalid2014
Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
"Saying that weight (or health for that matter) is simply a function of 'calories in, calories out' is completely wrong.

It is a drastic oversimplification that doesn’t account for the complex metabolic pathways that different foods go through, or the effects that foods have on our brain and hormones."

That's the conclusion of a well-researched article entitled "Debunking The Calorie Myth". For anyone interested in investigating this further, the full article is here:
http://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/

Replies

  • Iron_Feline
    Iron_Feline Posts: 10,750 Member
    That is a terrible site - and totally incorrect.

    for weight IT IS calories in / calories out

    For health its about the macros.
  • JenniDaisy
    JenniDaisy Posts: 526 Member
    Iron_Feline wrote: »
    That is a terrible site - and totally incorrect.

    for weight IT IS calories in / calories out

    For health its about the macros.

    [/Thread]
  • nancyjay__
    nancyjay__ Posts: 310 Member
    Weight and health are two totally DIFFERENT things. As for weight CICO has my vote. And the site does suck
  • seska422
    seska422 Posts: 3,217 Member
    No one told me that the basic laws of Physics had been changed. I'm always the last one to know! :o
  • nancyjay__
    nancyjay__ Posts: 310 Member
    THIS PART OF THE ARTICLE IS LIFE!!!!

    Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is just as ridiculous as saying that the entrance hall is so crowded because more people are entering than leaving.


    LMFAOOOOOO I went temporarily dumb just reading part of this article
  • Iron_Feline
    Iron_Feline Posts: 10,750 Member
    nancyjay__ wrote: »
    THIS PART OF THE ARTICLE IS LIFE!!!!

    Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is just as ridiculous as saying that the entrance hall is so crowded because more people are entering than leaving.


    LMFAOOOOOO I went temporarily dumb just reading part of this article

    now I haz the dumb too :sad:
  • Nony_Mouse
    Nony_Mouse Posts: 5,646 Member
    JenniDaisy wrote: »
    Iron_Feline wrote: »
    That is a terrible site - and totally incorrect.

    for weight IT IS calories in / calories out

    For health its about the macros.

    [/Thread]

    And micros ;)

    Now [/Thread]
  • Daiako
    Daiako Posts: 12,545 Member
    nancyjay__ wrote: »
    THIS PART OF THE ARTICLE IS LIFE!!!!

    Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is just as ridiculous as saying that the entrance hall is so crowded because more people are entering than leaving.


    LMFAOOOOOO I went temporarily dumb just reading part of this article

    But. But that does mean...that's exactly...I can't. I don't.

    Someone.

    Someone help me. My brain.
  • nancyjay__
    nancyjay__ Posts: 310 Member
    Daiako wrote: »
    nancyjay__ wrote: »
    THIS PART OF THE ARTICLE IS LIFE!!!!

    Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is just as ridiculous as saying that the entrance hall is so crowded because more people are entering than leaving.


    LMFAOOOOOO I went temporarily dumb just reading part of this article

    But. But that does mean...that's exactly...I can't. I don't.

    Someone.

    Someone help me. My brain.

    I KNOW!!!!! BAHAHAHAH I REREAD IT LIKE 10 TIMES
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    edited April 2015
    T
    Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
    "Saying that weight (or health for that matter) is simply a function of 'calories in, calories out' is completely wrong.

    It is a drastic oversimplification that doesn’t account for the complex metabolic pathways that different foods go through, or the effects that foods have on our brain and hormones."

    That's the conclusion of a well-researched article entitled "Debunking The Calorie Myth". For anyone interested in investigating this further, the full article is here:
    http://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/

    Well, that whole article is a straw man argument. No one is saying that macro nutrient distribution doesn't matter. Yes, CICO is a simplification. Yes, only eating carbs or protein or fats will result in issues.

    However, following a program that focuses on CICO with consistent macros and moving more will generally be effective - if followed.

    It's not debunking anything.
  • Nony_Mouse
    Nony_Mouse Posts: 5,646 Member
    It's like someone collected all the broscience about weight loss and spewed it out in one place...
  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member
    seska422 wrote: »
    No one told me that the basic laws of Physics had been changed. I'm always the last one to know! :o

    According to one of the commenters on this article, this is what Stephen Hawking had to say on the matter. (The guy actually wrote to him!)

    He said "Your question pertains to biological and biochemical matters which is not exactly my area. In general one must consider FREE ENERGY (which includes entropy) rather than energy. The loss and gain of fat/muscle are extremely complex biochemical/physiological processes best understood within that framework. This is NOT (emphasis mine) a matter of basic thermodynamics. Best wishes, SWH"
  • jenilla1
    jenilla1 Posts: 11,118 Member
    I'm not sure that authoritynutrition.com is really much of an authority.
  • nancyjay__
    nancyjay__ Posts: 310 Member
    Nony_Mouse wrote: »
    It's like someone collected all the broscience about weight loss and spewed it out in one place...

    It hurt my brain trying to read it
  • seska422
    seska422 Posts: 3,217 Member
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    I'm not sure that authoritynutrition.com is really much of an authority.
    But...but...it's right there in the name! ;)
  • nancyjay__
    nancyjay__ Posts: 310 Member
    herrspoons wrote: »
    Of course, the real question is when are the mods going to IP ban Pretty Kitty's repetitive trolling accounts?

    Move along, folks. Different name, same old crap.

    I'm new here who's that
  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    I'm not sure that authoritynutrition.com is really much of an authority.

    Really? What makes you say that?

    I've just discovered it, but their mission statement seems spot-on:

    "The main goal of this site is to search the scientific literature for true answers, preferably from randomized controlled trials, which are the gold standard of research.

    Then the science is deciphered to make it understandable by professionals and laypeople alike. Every effort is made to be objective, unbiased, honest and to present both sides of the argument."

    And their panel of contributors seems very well-qualified...
    http://authoritynutrition.com/about/
  • Iron_Feline
    Iron_Feline Posts: 10,750 Member
    Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    I'm not sure that authoritynutrition.com is really much of an authority.

    Really? What makes you say that?

    I've just discovered it, but their mission statement seems spot-on:

    "The main goal of this site is to search the scientific literature for true answers, preferably from randomized controlled trials, which are the gold standard of research.

    Then the science is deciphered to make it understandable by professionals and laypeople alike. Every effort is made to be objective, unbiased, honest and to present both sides of the argument."

    And their panel of contributors seems very well-qualified...
    http://authoritynutrition.com/about/

    lol no.

    They may say that - they certainly don't do that.
  • nancyjay__
    nancyjay__ Posts: 310 Member
    edited April 2015
    Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    I'm not sure that authoritynutrition.com is really much of an authority.

    Really? What makes you say that?

    I've just discovered it, but their mission statement seems spot-on:

    "The main goal of this site is to search the scientific literature for true answers, preferably from randomized controlled trials, which are the gold standard of research.

    Then the science is deciphered to make it understandable by professionals and laypeople alike. Every effort is made to be objective, unbiased, honest and to present both sides of the argument."

    And their panel of contributors seems very well-qualified...
    http://authoritynutrition.com/about/
    Holy sh** she's serious!
    I .......can't.
  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member
    nancyjay__ wrote: »
    I .......can't.

    Make an intelligent response, you mean? Thought not. (:-)
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
    seska422 wrote: »
    No one told me that the basic laws of Physics had been changed. I'm always the last one to know! :o

    According to one of the commenters on this article, this is what Stephen Hawking had to say on the matter. (The guy actually wrote to him!)

    He said "Your question pertains to biological and biochemical matters which is not exactly my area. In general one must consider FREE ENERGY (which includes entropy) rather than energy. The loss and gain of fat/muscle are extremely complex biochemical/physiological processes best understood within that framework. This is NOT (emphasis mine) a matter of basic thermodynamics. Best wishes, SWH"

    Appeal to authority fallacy.
    An authority that isn't even an authority on the matter.
    Might as well ask my cat on the subject.

    CICO really has nothing to do with thermodynamics or physics. It still works as a good framework.
  • joolsmd
    joolsmd Posts: 375 Member
    edited April 2015
    Edited cos point already made.

    CICO partnered with healthy eating works for me, so i'm going to carry on doing it.
  • nancyjay__
    nancyjay__ Posts: 310 Member
    Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
    nancyjay__ wrote: »
    I .......can't.

    Make an intelligent response, you mean? Thought not. (:-)

    Yes because you wouldn't understand one if I did :*
  • nancyjay__
    nancyjay__ Posts: 310 Member
    joolsmd wrote: »
    nancyjay__ wrote: »
    THIS PART OF THE ARTICLE IS LIFE!!!!

    Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is just as ridiculous as saying that the entrance hall is so crowded because more people are entering than leaving.


    LMFAOOOOOO I went temporarily dumb just reading part of this article
    But its true isn't it? The entrance hall IS crowded because more people are entering than leaving. They've just demonstrated what they're trying to deny. :confused:

    Lol that's what makes it hilarious it doesn't make sense. And its like me just because the cup is half empty doesn't mean its half full. Yes it does!
    OK this isn't fun if I have to explain it to you lol
  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member
    EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

    However, following a program that focuses on CICO with consistent macros and moving more will generally be effective - if followed.

    Well, that raises an interesting point made in the article and resultant comments: someone pointed out that if something is an exact science, then it has to work in all cases. If it doesn't work in one case, then the science is invalid. It's a good point.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,427 MFP Moderator
    edited April 2015
    b46ffce0.jpg

    +

    drama-meme-2.png

    =

    socially-awesome-penguin-meme-generator-thread-closed-ea545c.jpg
This discussion has been closed.

Categories