weightloser81

CICO is literally not the root cause. In the strict sense it can't be since it's simply a thermodynamic equation applied to body weight. Equations are not causes.

If you mean "overeating" then that's also not the reason. It's like saying that being sad is the root cause of depression.

If your analysis of obesity doesn't factor in hormons then it's not going to get you any working solutions. Which is exactly what we observe in the public health sphere since the 1970ies.

> Debt

Nobody is contesting that. What you say is true but it's also just a very obvious and unhelpful restatement of the problem.

I play soccer, badly. When better players give me feedback there is two kinds. One boils down to simply a restatement of the goals of the game: pass better, don't miss the goal, get the ball. I hope you agree that if you really think about it such exhortation are silly. What I actually need is advice that tells me HOW to achieve this. It's the same for debt, weight loss etc.

Not to forget that Ketoers and Low Carbers starting with Attkins where and are viciously attacked by the CICO mainstream. When people here say stuff like "well get your deficit anyway you want" than this shows the influence that losing to LC for the last two decades had on the CICO faction. It wasn't like this when I started my keto journey. Back then they said it can't work because fat has the highest energy density and will make your heart explode.

CICO is the mother of all motte-and-bailey fallacies. The motte is a restatement of thermodynamics and therefore completely unassailable, at least in this universe. From this the proponents sally forth to make claims like "counting calories is a good way to lose weight". Whenever someone refutes this or anything else CICOs pulled from the bailey they, the CICOs, retreat to the motte and say stuff like "see, you did have a calorie deficit from IF".

Yes, thermodynamics is always correct but usually not the appropriate level of analysis at which to address human problems.

A simple restatement of CICO arguments in terms of car fuel is enough to see how utterly trivial they are:

"My uncle got stranded on the highway"

"How so?"

"Ran out of gas"

"Well, he must have had less energy in the tank then he needed to get to his destination. Simple CICO"

Notice how the response is completely correct yet utterly useless. We haven't learned anything about why the uncle ran out of fuel. Was it a leak? CICO is true. Did he forget to fill up? CICO is true. Was he out of money and desperately hoping for the best? CICO is true. Thermodynamics is always true!

Notice how all of the different real reasons need a completely different solution. If you responded with "you just need to have enough fuel available to the engine to make it to the destination" as your "solution" people would think you are autistic.

If, when presented with the real solution, you said "well, see because he gave his uncle money for gas, now the fuel balance is postive" people would ask if you had a stroke.

Why is it that this level of "argumentation" is somehow okay for intelligent people when it comes to weight loss but would get you laughed out of the room on literally any other topic? Try it: poverty? money-in-money-out! Housing? Houses-built-Houses-used! Job problems? Literally just get fired once less then you get hired!