• areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Not really. Lots of people talk about excecising more when it comes to loosing weight, and many of those follow CICO. Not realising that isn’t how a human body works with regards to excercise. You also see people claiming that genetics are not signficant, or that slow and fast metabolisms don’t exist. Even though we know all of these things are a factor. It’s mental what some people believe about diet, nutrition, and excercise. Likewise everyone using BMI pretty much is an idiot, even in school I was told that isn’t a good metric otherwise every athelete or body builder would be obese.

    Also still not convinced CICO is even a thing. Digestion is not a 100% efficient process. Calories are measured by burning something, and human metabolism isn’t a fire.

    • Zorque@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      Also still not convinced CICO is even a thing.

      So… you don’t even agree with the crux of your own argument?

      Maybe I’m misinterpreting CICO, as I assumed it could be taken as just it’s initialism without having to be associated with any more complex fad diet.

      I understand that when people reference something, interpretation is not universal. There’s always going to be variance. I just hadn’t had that experience.

      I also know it’s a very hard metric to track. It will vary depending on body type, metabolism, and even psychology. I don’t recall that being disputed, though. Just that, at it’s core, it’s more about reducing caloric intake than increasing caloric use.

      • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        I mean for a start calories themselves are a bad unit to use. A human body is not a fire or an engine. It doesn’t actually burn stuff.

        As I explained the whole Calories Out portion of CICO doesn’t actually work, because the body can adjust it’s various metabolic processes. Only the CI part has any real use.

        • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Eat less. Move more. Lose weight.

          If the amount you move doesn’t change, eating less still will make you lose weight.

          It’s just physics at the end of the day, regardless of how unhappy you are with units of measurement.

          • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            As I have explained the Move More part doesn’t actually do much long term. So that’s my problem with it. Fairly easy to understand. Again calories aren’t even a good measurement to begin with, you aren’t an engine or a fire. More like a fuel cell.

            • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Cico is a ratio of two things. If you isolate one half and claim it doesn’t work, you’re no longer critiquing the method, your critiquing a thing you don’t like and using that to claim the ratio doesn’t work.

              • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Even the eat less part isn’t quite right. As it completely ignores why people eat too much in the first place, or how the body adapts to insufficient food. Trying to treat biology as a physics problem isn’t going to work here.