[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/

[laserlight]

I understand that by quoting my reply on usefulness, you claim that “calories in, calories out” model is not useful. For the model to not be useful, one should prove that people gain weight while consuming a caloric deficit, or that people lose weight while consuming a caloric surplus.

I don't see how these references show that. They are irrelevant to our discussion. The first Harvard piece is bullshit, written for those feel-good types who don't want to put in the effort of losing weight. The second one has nothing to do with “calories in, calories out”. It just states some observation on contestants. The paper has “calories in, calories out” in the title, yet doesn't talk about the model at all. It talks about something else, called conventional model.

Nowhere in “calories in, calories out” I understand that it is easy to create deficit by eating junk food or that one can go back to their old lifestyle once they have lost weight. People fight with an imaginary enemy.

I think that I've explained my view as well as I could. Thanks for your participation.

[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

[sn9]

I have a literal degree in biology and have been reading about physiology, health and fitness, and related topics for well over a decade.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

This is textbook level stuff and you clearly haven't read a single one. Your wiki level understanding is missing the forest for the chlorophyll.