A complete and total repudiation of all the people who bleat "calories in, calories out"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing CICO is good for is that it is a handy shortcut for identifying people who aren’t too bright.

It depends on how they are using it. If they follow it up with "duh, just eat less and exercise more" then yes.

Funny, actually counting calories and then cutting calories and pairing that with increased exercise worked for me. People like to make something relatively simple complicated because the simple solution requires self control.

Other overweight people could follow your diet/exercise routine and still gain weight. Our body's engine to burn calories can be dramatically different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing CICO is good for is that it is a handy shortcut for identifying people who aren’t too bright.

It depends on how they are using it. If they follow it up with "duh, just eat less and exercise more" then yes.

Funny, actually counting calories and then cutting calories and pairing that with increased exercise worked for me. People like to make something relatively simple complicated because the simple solution requires self control.

Other overweight people could follow your diet/exercise routine and still gain weight. Our body's engine to burn calories can be dramatically different.

Studies have shown that 95%+ people have metabolic rates within 15% of of the norm. Maybe you're an extreme outlier, but most people aren't

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing CICO is good for is that it is a handy shortcut for identifying people who aren’t too bright.

It depends on how they are using it. If they follow it up with "duh, just eat less and exercise more" then yes.

Funny, actually counting calories and then cutting calories and pairing that with increased exercise worked for me. People like to make something relatively simple complicated because the simple solution requires self control.

Other overweight people could follow your diet/exercise routine and still gain weight. Our body's engine to burn calories can be dramatically different.

Studies have shown that 95%+ people have metabolic rates within 15% of of the norm. Maybe you're an extreme outlier, but most people aren't

DP, but a 15% range (depending on how you define that) can lead to big differences in outcome. It's not trivial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing CICO is good for is that it is a handy shortcut for identifying people who aren’t too bright.

It depends on how they are using it. If they follow it up with "duh, just eat less and exercise more" then yes.

Honestly, I’ve so rarely seen intelligent and perceptive conversation follow when people talk about CICO that I’m comfortable using it as a heuristic for stupidity. Occasionally CICO is used thoughtfully by research scientists but in everyday life, it’s a spot-on heuristic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing CICO is good for is that it is a handy shortcut for identifying people who aren’t too bright.

It depends on how they are using it. If they follow it up with "duh, just eat less and exercise more" then yes.

Funny, actually counting calories and then cutting calories and pairing that with increased exercise worked for me. People like to make something relatively simple complicated because the simple solution requires self control.

Other overweight people could follow your diet/exercise routine and still gain weight. Our body's engine to burn calories can be dramatically different.

Studies have shown that 95%+ people have metabolic rates within 15% of of the norm. Maybe you're an extreme outlier, but most people aren't

DP, but a 15% range (depending on how you define that) can lead to big differences in outcome. It's not trivial.

However that's defined, that means two people can be 30% points apart if they're on opposite ends of that. The difference between 1700 and 2300 calories on a 2000 calorie diet. That's an entire meal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing CICO is good for is that it is a handy shortcut for identifying people who aren’t too bright.

It depends on how they are using it. If they follow it up with "duh, just eat less and exercise more" then yes.

Honestly, I’ve so rarely seen intelligent and perceptive conversation follow when people talk about CICO that I’m comfortable using it as a heuristic for stupidity. Occasionally CICO is used thoughtfully by research scientists but in everyday life, it’s a spot-on heuristic.

PP here. That's good to know! I now understand why people I largely agree with respond very negatively to me when I use the phrase.

[Anonymous]

The title of this thread doesn’t match the content.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing CICO is good for is that it is a handy shortcut for identifying people who aren’t too bright.

It depends on how they are using it. If they follow it up with "duh, just eat less and exercise more" then yes.

If only they had the intelligence to be coddled by the New York Times to validate their life choices.

The original post was so dumb it hurts anybody with a brain. Nobody thinks CICO standing alone as a rigid idea is a solution. But a general framework of don’t eat piles of garbage and actually move instead sitting in front of a computer all day is a good idea.

Again you are promoting that it is eating shite food and being lazy that equals obese. That is not true once metabolic disease sets in.

Well how did that set in to begin with? Also, metabolic disease is reversible. People do it all the time. Crazy talk that.

Why is it everybody is a victim of some external force for everything? By that logic there is never any personal responsibility for anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The title of this thread doesn’t match the content.

I’ve been on DCUM for about two years now and this subject is recycled every few months. 70-80 pages are written every tine and no one is any the wiser. The same people post and call people names just for disagreeing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing CICO is good for is that it is a handy shortcut for identifying people who aren’t too bright.

It depends on how they are using it. If they follow it up with "duh, just eat less and exercise more" then yes.

If only they had the intelligence to be coddled by the New York Times to validate their life choices.

The original post was so dumb it hurts anybody with a brain. Nobody thinks CICO standing alone as a rigid idea is a solution. But a general framework of don’t eat piles of garbage and actually move instead sitting in front of a computer all day is a good idea.

Again you are promoting that it is eating shite food and being lazy that equals obese. That is not true once metabolic disease sets in.

So before metabolic disease sets in, what’s the excuse for eating garbage food, not moving enough and thus gaining weight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing CICO is good for is that it is a handy shortcut for identifying people who aren’t too bright.

It depends on how they are using it. If they follow it up with "duh, just eat less and exercise more" then yes.

If only they had the intelligence to be coddled by the New York Times to validate their life choices.

The original post was so dumb it hurts anybody with a brain. Nobody thinks CICO standing alone as a rigid idea is a solution. But a general framework of don’t eat piles of garbage and actually move instead sitting in front of a computer all day is a good idea.

Okay so here we have:

1) ad hominem
2) ad hominem again
3) generalization
4) straw man
5) false dichotomy

It's amazing that every single sentence in your comment contains at least one logical fallacy.

I don't want to insult anybody's intelligence, so I will just say that I believe you can do better here.

Funny this is a response to a response to the same kind of comment concerning reference to CICO and people “not being too bright.”

Look, if you want to be a victim yourself or try to make it out as if there are all these elaborate external factors for everybody, go right ahead. It’s just a form of gatekeeping. People can lead healthy lives and lose excess weight. It’s possible. And, they can keep the weight off and change their lifestyle. All of these things are possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing CICO is good for is that it is a handy shortcut for identifying people who aren’t too bright.

It depends on how they are using it. If they follow it up with "duh, just eat less and exercise more" then yes.

If only they had the intelligence to be coddled by the New York Times to validate their life choices.

The original post was so dumb it hurts anybody with a brain. Nobody thinks CICO standing alone as a rigid idea is a solution. But a general framework of don’t eat piles of garbage and actually move instead sitting in front of a computer all day is a good idea.

Again you are promoting that it is eating shite food and being lazy that equals obese. That is not true once metabolic disease sets in.

Well how did that set in to begin with? Also, metabolic disease is reversible. People do it all the time. Crazy talk that.

Why is it everybody is a victim of some external force for everything? By that logic there is never any personal responsibility for anything.

Because we don't live alone in a cave, but in an extremely unequal society that affects almost every aspect of our lives?

[Anonymous]

They did not say there is no personal responsibility, but rather that it is the way our society is treating food and how there should be responsibility at the higher levels for food that is offered and how it is distributed and propaganda that supports horrible food choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing CICO is good for is that it is a handy shortcut for identifying people who aren’t too bright.

It depends on how they are using it. If they follow it up with "duh, just eat less and exercise more" then yes.

If only they had the intelligence to be coddled by the New York Times to validate their life choices.

The original post was so dumb it hurts anybody with a brain. Nobody thinks CICO standing alone as a rigid idea is a solution. But a general framework of don’t eat piles of garbage and actually move instead sitting in front of a computer all day is a good idea.

Okay so here we have:

1) ad hominem
2) ad hominem again
3) generalization
4) straw man
5) false dichotomy

It's amazing that every single sentence in your comment contains at least one logical fallacy.

I don't want to insult anybody's intelligence, so I will just say that I believe you can do better here.

Funny this is a response to a response to the same kind of comment concerning reference to CICO and people “not being too bright.”

Look, if you want to be a victim yourself or try to make it out as if there are all these elaborate external factors for everybody, go right ahead. It’s just a form of gatekeeping. People can lead healthy lives and lose excess weight. It’s possible. And, they can keep the weight off and change their lifestyle. All of these things are possible.

I'm not the PP who made the comment about not being too bright, but even if I was it wouldn't negate the validity of my comment.

Not the this should matter since we are talking about facts, but for the past ten years my BMI has been 21. I work out almost every day and I love exercise. I eat mostly healthy. I used to have a BMI of 26 and at that time I never worked out or ate well. I am not acting like a victim or somebody who doesn't take personal responsibility. I am just not generalizing my life experience to everybody else in the world.

And your statement about "elaborate external factors" applying to everybody sort of misses the point. The factors that impact weight do apply to everybody. Everybody's weight is impacted by their metabolism, but we all have different metabolisms. Everybody's mental health impacts their weight, but our mental health levels are very different. Everybody's weight is impacted by their access to food, but everybody has different access to food, and so on. The reason for the number on the scale is multifaceted for everybody, not just those who are overweight.

[Anonymous]

Diets of people who live in blue zones with very low obesity rate have no food I crave or even consider a treat.

I am pretty sure if the only food available to me was green vegetables, tofu, fish, tea and wherein pork is only eaten on holidays.... my body would be slim like the rest of the blue zone people.