A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries

Re:A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries by AnIdiotOnTheNet on Monday July 12, 2021 @10:11AM (#27810464)

Absolutely. CICO is the kind of thing that is so obviously true that anyone claiming it isn't shouldn't be taken seriously. I wouldn't say CICO doesn't help anyone though, because there's a whole lot of people out there trying to make money by telling you you can ignore CICO with this one simple trick. CICO is a useful thing to keep telling yourself when trying to lose weight because the calories are everything and there's no cheating it. Trust me, I have tried.

Source: lost >150lbs and kept it off until the pandemic where I gained about 30 of it back. Stress is a bitch.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries by BitwiseFool on Monday July 12, 2021 @02:28PM (#27813437)

CICO makes sense as a rule of thumb, but the kind of calories certainly matters. I'm no dietician, but carbohydrates, sugar, and fat each react differently with the body's digestive and endocrine system. Surely that has some effect beyond mere CICO calculations. I'd love to see a study that compares change in bodyfat with 2000 calories of cake frosting vs 2000 calories of red meat.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Chemical Hunger: Mysteries by AnIdiotOnTheNet on Monday July 12, 2021 @02:49PM (#27813642)

I'm not aware of any such study, however there was this: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/...

In which a man loses 27lbs on a diet of twinkies and was even healthier overall according to all metrics.

Between this and personal experience I'm prepared to say that as far as weight loss is concerned it really doesn't matter. Granted, different foods may have an effect on mood, energy level, and satiety which will all contribute to the CO part of the CICO equation, but all other variables kept constant a calorie is a calorie.

[ Parent | on HN ]