Well the point i am trying to make is that your explanation on why it work for you is probably wrong, and even more the advice you generate from your theory can be dangerous and counter productive.
> Right, that’s called propositional logic. It’s perfectly valid to make “CICO works” predicated upon whether you follow it correctly.
Well no. And that really the core of the issue. I see that you didn't answer to the example i gave you.
But if we want to be pedantic :
1 - There is no definition of "works" in propositional logic.
2 - Here what i understand from your logic deductions :
A - CICO can be rephrase as : For a given individual , for every time duration t : delta_weight(t) = CI(t) - CO(t)
B - What you are saying is : for a given individual , for every time duration t : delta_weight(t) = CI(t) - CO(t), THEREFORE, for every delta_weight, there is a time duration T, and CI(t) and CO(t) such that delta_weight = CI(t) and CO(t);
And my point is that B is false (empirically), and does NOT follow from A (logically). And to repeat myself you can try this game with room temperature and thermometer readings.
Your understanding of CICO (or at least the point I am making about it) is wrong in your “B” paragraph.
My argument boils down to the following:
For every individual, at any given time, there is a metabolic rate M for which, if their calorie intake was larger than that, they’d gain weight, and if their calorie intake was smaller, they’d lose weight. Crucially, M changes over time.
But going CICO properly means using the scale to measure M, every day, by diffing your expected value of your weight loss given how much you’re eaten, with the actual value on the scale. You now have an updated value for M to use in calorie counting.
Since M is determined by empirical observations of your weight loss/gain in response to the calories you have consumed, you will by definition lose weight if you consume less than M calories. This is the argument that CICO must work by definition. It’s a logical contradiction for it not to work.
> Your understanding of CICO (or at least the point I am making about it) is wrong in your “B” paragraph.
Just to clarify B is not cico, it's the inference that you seems to make from CICO.
> For every individual, at any given time, there is a metabolic rate M for which, if their calorie intake was larger than that, they’d gain weight, and if their calorie intake was smaller, they’d lose weight. Crucially, M changes over time
This is "not" the definition of CICO, and again does not follow from CICO. CICO is fundamentally a thermodynamic statement about the observed state of a system. You are making predictive statement about a possible future state of the system.
Again, if you want to believe that statement that's fine. The point i am making is just it's does not follow from cico, no have i seen anything empirically that validate that statement.
> Since M is determined by empirical observations of your weight loss/gain in response to the calories you have consumed, you will by definition lose weight if you consume less than M calories.
sure this derived from your "definition" of CICO... but your definition is not thermodynamically derived...
> This is the argument that CICO must work by definition
the premise (the definition of the argument) is flawed.
> It’s a logical contradiction for it not to work.
Not really, CICO not working (as in this case) can be just the result of sound logic based on bad premises.
> Right, that’s called propositional logic. It’s perfectly valid to make “CICO works” predicated upon whether you follow it correctly.
Well no. And that really the core of the issue. I see that you didn't answer to the example i gave you.
But if we want to be pedantic :
1 - There is no definition of "works" in propositional logic.
2 - Here what i understand from your logic deductions :
And my point is that B is false (empirically), and does NOT follow from A (logically). And to repeat myself you can try this game with room temperature and thermometer readings.