[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.

[mister_mister]

Would it be possible to at least look at the sources and argue against them? A appeal to authority, and an Ad hominem won't help the discussion along.

[sn9]

Would you bother reading the textbooks worth of information I've consumed first?

You aren't entitled to another person's time and effort when you've decided your googling is in any way comparable to literal years of study in environments where you actually get feedback on your understanding.

[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]

Would it be possible to share sources of the claims that you're making? Instead of demanding them and not reading them when they are presented.

There is no reason for those Ad hominem attacks. We can have civil disagreement.

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

[sn9]

These aren't ad hominem attacks.

I explained to you that you have fundamental misunderstandings so vast in scope that it would take several hours to explain them to you. This criticism was rooted in years of education and research that can't be compressed into a single comment.

If you google things to confirm your worldview, you will get the evidence you wish.

If you wish to see how those who successfully manipulate their body composition at will down to the pound, you would look to those populations who do so like bodybuilders and strength athletes and those who compete in weight classes.

And if you wished to have the ability to discern when an argument is irrelevant or outright wrong, to understand the most basic elements of physiology and physics and chemistry, you would put in the time to read the textbooks which are explicitly designed to convey this information to you in a comprehensive way designed for understanding rather than relying on university PR pieces.