[jonnycoder]

You just proved his point. If two people eat 10,000 calories and the one with type 1 diabetes is passing most of it as waste but the other person is storing that in the form of glucose and fat, then CICO is broken in that example. But like you say, account for such factors and the principles hold true; how do we know there aren't factors yet to be discovered?

[Frost1x]

How does this proove the point? In the example given, the diabetic is expending more calories (through waste) than the non-diabetic... the model still holds valid. The diabetic has less net calories absorbed by their body.

>how do we know there aren't factors yet to be discovered?

We don't and can't (by definition), that's part of the scientific process. Part of that process requires us to find evidence to the contrary or provide a viable testable competing argument. We don't just waive our hands in the air and claim magic gremlins are making people skinny or fat since there are likely limits to human understanding and knowledge, especially at any given specific point on time.

Most the evidence out there, that I'm aware of, vehemently supports the CICO model and it makes sense as a complex system resting up very well studied chemical and physical phenomena. The only thing broken seems to be a general understanding of the model being discussed.

[librish]

The point is that when people say calories IN they normally refer to what you put in your mouth, not how much your body absorbs.

[mister_mister]

That is problem with CICO proponents start with scientific terms. But it always ends up with magic what does or does not count based and whatever the argument they are in. CICO models doesn't state anything they claim, but it in the end it's argument into nothing. Because human cells does not use calories it uses ATP through the kerb cycle. That whole process so bizarre complex, and then also based on so many confounded factors, that CICO is just too simplistic and it's almost impossible to lose weight and keep it off according to the model. Link to study about how the biggest losers contestants are doing after the show. Hint not well...

https://www.health.harvard.edu/diet-and-weight-loss/lessons-...

[laserlight]

I find this interpretation of “calories in” very uncharitable. We certainly don't argue over whether eating coal makes one fat. Coal has lots of calories, but we're interested in metabolically available ones. If type 1 diabetes people cannot metabolize glucose, then it doesn't count as in.

[mister_mister]

They do have glucose metabolism[0], but that is the issue with CICO model already you have to start making extra rules about what is digestable and what is not. Calories doesn't state that all. Offcourse it wouldn't because the Calories concept was made for steam engines in 1800's.[1] Not that is matter from when it is. But maybe it's time for new ideas that do explain that conundrum of those type 1 diabetics. The Carbohydrate-Insulin Model of Obesity[2] does have a explanation.

[0]https://www.healthline.com/health/diabetes/insulin-effects-o...

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie

[2]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6082688/

[laserlight]

> extra rules about what is digestable and what is not. Calories doesn't state that all.

I wouldn't call those rules “extra”. After all, we're talking about human metabolism and what is digestible or not is central. The calories we're talking about under this topic has nothing to do with steam engines, except that both steam engines and humans take some input, called calories.

I don't see any conundrum with type 1 diabetes. They might have a different metabolism that counts differently which calories are in.

By the way, do you have a reference for this claim of yours [0]:

> people without insulin are able to stay thin, while eating massive amounts of calories

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34518288

[mister_mister]

So how do we calculate Calories In and Out according to you? Becausr it sounds like that we have to deal with real world that really complex digestion, hormones, gut biome. You just start adding and subtracting numbers.

At that moment CICO dies, because you won't be able to measure anything and just have black box which you give whatever number makes sense in the end.

Not that it matters because the cells in human body use ATP not calories. As such calories are at best a proxy for how much food.

But that is issue with CICO, it's like magic box and we only have to count IN, as much at what makes the calculation correct later on, also with OUT. That is not very scientific. Because we are unable to reproduce anything.

I have posted the article before, have you read it? https://www.everydayhealth.com/eating-disorders/diabulimia/

[laserlight]

A model being difficult or tedious to quantify doesn't make it false. And, all models are wrong, but some are useful.

> But that is issue with CICO, it's like magic box and we only have to count IN, as much at what makes the calculation correct later on, also with OUT. That is not very scientific.

The whole physics is a magic box. We find qualities of materials after we measure them, because that's how the model is constructed.

Let's say that I have a model called mass in volume out (MIVO). It states that mass of a liquid predicts its volume. We measure how much volume a certain amount of water takes, vary the amount, see if the model works, and it does. But a MIVO-denier is not happy, because our measurements with water doesn't reproduce with mercury. Well, duh, because they have different densities. MIVO-denier is still not satisfied, because now they have to go through the tedious task of finding the density of the material they have to work with before being able to apply the model. Furthermore, they have to keep the temperature constant, not mix liquids, etc. Yet, MIVO works regardless of how difficult it is to quantify, measure, or use.

PS: Thanks for the reference. I had missed it.

[mister_mister]

> A model being difficult or tedious to quantify doesn't make it false. And, all models are wrong, but some are useful.

Here is a link from Harvard saying to stop counting calories[0]. Here is another link from Havard[1] going over the contestants of the biggest loser and how they are doing now.

There is new model The Carbohydrate-Insulin Model of Obesity[2] which has explanation that does explain the edge cases CICO is missing.

But calories are measuring food, and at the moment there is no better way to have overview of how much across different types of food. But CICO itself doesn't help with long term weight loss.

[0]https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/stop-counting...

[1]https://www.health.harvard.edu/diet-and-weight-loss/lessons-...

[2]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6082688/

[sn9]

You have several misunderstandings of basic science.

"Calories" are simply a unit of energy. The energy released by the utilization of ATP can be measured in any unit of measure you like for energy. It won't change the fact that the unit can be calories.

This is like arguing about Celsius vs some other unit.

Likewise, the CICO model has been replicated over and over again in high quality studies that don't rely on self-reported intake. And this model and information are used by thousands of people every year to manipulate their bodyweight and composition at will in sports like bodybuilding or ones with weight classes.

Indeed, treating the body as a black box makes this even easier as tracking caloric intake and your bodyweight is sufficient to do this and apps like Macrofactor do all the math for you.

[mister_mister]

> "This idea of 'a calorie in and a calorie out' when it comes to weight loss is not only antiquated, it's just wrong,"[0] Link from havard.

You are under the incorrect understanding that human body is closed system. Food doesn't need to be digested and what is digested doesn't need to be stored in fat cells.

Question if you would eat all the food once a week would it have the same effect? Because in a closed system it would, you can fuel the car little by little each day or fill the whole tank. But after one week of fasting they body will respond much different, a person can even die of even trying that scenario [1]

Did anyone lose 5 kilo by switching to a light product?

But the issue at hand was why people without insulin can eat massive amounts of food but won't gain any weight? Can't explain that with CICO, you can with other models[2].

> "Calories" are simply a unit of energy. The energy released by the utilization of ATP can be measured in any unit of measure you like for energy. It won't change the fact that the unit can be calories.

This statement is not correct, Calories is burning food. While metabolism goes through absolutely complex system. Kerb cycle, where glucose, ketones, fatty-acids and oxygen are turned in ATP, Link is only 1 small part and doesn't even cover how food was digested before that, by the gut biom, stomach acids. [3]

Human metabolism is too complex to discuss here in the comments.

[0]https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/stop-counting...

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refeeding_syndrome

[2]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6082688/

[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle