▲ | Kirby64 3 days ago | |||||||
> No one is questioning if CICO works. That's like if questioning if physics works. No one is doing that. The laws of the universe are still intact. Other people are, in fact, questioning CICO. Look at the other commenter talking about base metabolism changes. To put an analogy to this: Gambling addicts often lose lots of money at casinos. The behaviors that lead to them being addicted to gambling are in many ways likely equivalent to overeating problems. Nobody asks 'why are gambling addicts losing money?' because we know the reason (casinos have the house edge... you always lose on aggregate). And yet, with food, people consistently ask the question 'why are people so obese?' as if the answer isn't very obvious: they're eating too much food. It's purely as simple as that. The behaviors that lead to eating too much aren't nearly as focused on, in my opinion. Much time is spent on 'the kinds of foods eaten' and how specific things are bad for you, which is essentially like arguing that people should play more blackjack and less roulette or something. | ||||||||
▲ | unshavedyak 2 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||
> Other people are, in fact, questioning CICO. Look at the other commenter talking about base metabolism changes. I disagree. CICO is fundamental physics. Just because metabolism changes does not mean you can produce more energy than you take in. CICO always applies, and it's so 'duh' that it's nearly pointless to discuss in my mind. Their points about metabolism changes is that the details matter. Finding a way to break the cycle will yield more gains with the population than telling people to starve in a desert. | ||||||||
|