Reply to Economist article: Death of the Calorie

Forum Index » Diet, Nutrition & Weight Loss

Reply to "Economist article: Death of the Calorie "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Well, another factor is that CICO does not really speak to broader health concerns, like metabolic disorders.

Compare Larla's 1600 cal diet that consists of 5 Pepsis & white bread (and let's say, a supplement or two so she doesn't die of scurvy) versus Larly's 1600 cal of lean meat/fish, veggies/fruit, and a couple complex carbs. All else being equal, perhaps* Larla and Larly will ultimately not differ much in terms of weight gain or loss, but Larla and her Pepsis will probably end up insulin resistant & prediabetic at the least, and who know what other chronic diseases she would be courting.

So in other words, pretending that the human body is just "physics" is BS, however useful CICO may be to someone who is trying to lose 20 lbs.

*I doubt it.[/quote]

Ooh, this sounds like one of those "motte and bailey" arguments I've heard so much about!  Pepsi is unhealthy, therefore CICO is BS.

:roll: [b]Literally no one is disputing that different foods have different impacts on your overall health.[/b][/quote]
You literally are. That’s the entire definition of calories in, calories out. If, as you argue, the only thing that matters is caloric intake, then no, by your own definition it doesn’t matter what those calories are made of. You can’t have it both ways. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics