oh oh ok I get what you are saying now…lol…I kinda wasn’t getting your gist on how you were plugging it but now I see more of your line of chat on it…cool…yea I see your line of how you are talking about CICO more.
I AM critical of the way dieticians blame the dieter when it DOES NOT WORK - as in + 90% can’t sustain the deficit IN THE WAY THEY TEACH IT and quit. And it hurts their metabolism, so they gain back even more.
My viewpoint is all about how CICO is APPLIED by prefessionals, not that it is not true.
So then perhaps the title of the thread should be, “Why do people keep blaming CICO when it works just as well for ketogenic eaters as otherwise?”
I think a standard CICO comes with alot of baggage and misinformation tho. Like eat low fat. Limit those kcals severely. Skip food and take this supplement, or protein shake or eat this crappy packaged meal only…It usually is based off a SAD menu so ‘we can eat it all’, but just don’t eat over the kcal limit but yea in the end, if one’s food intake is controlled very tightly, you can diet off lbs but not everyone. Many can tackle a CICO and not lose any lbs. I guess alot of what circles around CICO is also why it is not fairing well out there for most. Yes anyone can lose some lbs but can you keep it off? Keeping it off is always that worst part of it all
Raising my head gingerly above the parapet. Surely the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to biological organisms for the simple reason that they are not closed systems.
Ducking now . . .
That is a very good point, and that argument has been used in the past, and yet you see that this topic comes up regularly for religitation. I think we just find it fun to rehash from time to time.
The laws of thermodynamics apply, Polly.
Open systems can exchange energy and matter with their surroundings, that’s all.
I think the real argument, here, is due to some people “out there” (not on this forum) denying the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis - which is what, IMO, @Janie is looking at. Other than that, what really is there…?
Tautologies and Other Limitations of the EBM
Energy balance and body weight
The appealing simplicity of the EBM belies an inherent tautology. Weight gain (or more precisely, fat gain) can occur only with a positive energy balance, in the same way that a fever can occur only if the body generates more heat than it dissipates. However, these reiterations of the law of energy conservation ignore causality. During the pubertal growth spurt, energy intake exceeds expenditure as body energy stores increase. Does increased consumption drive growth or does growth drive increased consumption? Neither possibility violates laws of physics, but the 2 perspectives have fundamentally different physiological bases and implications. Because the relation between energy balance and weight change is inseverable, statements regarding the importance of a negative balance provide no meaningful information about etiology.
Palatability and food intake
Regarding dietary drivers of obesity, common versions of the EBM focus on the variety and availability of “hyper-palatable” , energy-dense, processed foods (Supplemental Table 1). Clearly, people tend to eat more of the foods that they find tasty, and palatability seems to influence short-term food selection and energy intake. However, surprisingly little evidence relates palatability directly to chronic overconsumption…
… In the absence of clear correlates to intrinsic food properties, hyper-palatable foods have been defined as those that drive food intake—another tautology of the EBM, which simultaneously attributes increased food intake to hyper-palatable foods.
By focusing on energy balance—characteristically through conscious control, as highlighted in Supplemental Table 1—the basic formulation of the EBM essentially disregards knowledge about the biological influences on fat storage , . Moreover, a central conundrum is to understand why the so-called body weight “set point”  has increased rapidly among genetically stable populations. In the 1960s, the average man in the United States weighed ∼75 kg. Providing excess dietary energy to increase his weight to 90 kg would have elicited biological responses (e.g., decreased hunger, increased energy expenditure) to resist that gain. Today, the average man weighs ∼90 kg; restricting energy to reduce his weight to 75 kg would elicit opposite responses [26–30]. By excluding a metabolic effect of diet, common versions of the EBM offer no explanation for what changes in the environment have dysregulated the biological systems that counteract energy imbalance and resist weight change.
The CIM as a Physiological Explanation for the Obesity Pandemic
Like the EBM, the CIM posits that changes in food quality drive weight gain. However, according to the CIM, hormonal and metabolic responses to the source of dietary calories, not merely calorie content, lie upstream in the mechanistic pathway. In other words, the CIM proposes a reversal of causal direction: over the long term, a positive energy balance does not cause increasing adiposity; rather, a shift in substrate partitioning favoring fat storage drives a positive energy balance, as shown in Figure 1. Among modifiable factors, dietary glycemic load (GL) has central importance.
Twitter reminds of the saying about swimming pools. All the noise is coming from the shallow end. That applies to so many things.
I do actually pay attention to calories… old habits die hard. But, if I stay true to keto basics, it’s hard to eat too many calories.