Yup.I think you hit the nail on the head with this- We are debating things that people believe to be 100% accurate, which is a challenge to their beliefs.
@hexagonal has been a valued contributor to the community and everything I have seen him comment on has been framed in a productive and respectful tone.
@FlowerFairy has worked hard at her program and has a direct understanding of what has effected her.
Scientifically the physics argument makes sense, anecdotally the FF contention seems accurate.
We are at an impasse.
What is curious, and worth trying to understand better, is what would cause the gains on restricted calories.
As Hex points out the articles about movement discuss the arbitrary reduction in daily activities that impact the massive burns of the hunt- netting a reduced daily calorie burn.
What unknown factors are occurring, albeit infrequent enough to not be common knowledge, that might allow someone to gain or not lose under the CICO model?
Is it a result of no CO (like the less walking between hunts) is it a result of the CI (maybe slowed digestion absorbing and turbo charging the calories, making them stronger).
This needs to be studied and understood better.
here is an example of one such study-
![]()
Science Reveals Why Calorie Counts Are All Wrong
Digestion is far too messy a process to accurately convey in neat numbers. The counts on food labels can differ wildly from the calories you actually extract, for many reasonswww.scientificamerican.com
Not really much for me to add here - well said. There's a huge variety of factors that make both halves of the equation very different for different people and someone can be doing the exact same thing as a skinny person and have basically no results. It sucks. And anyone that acts like this is simple and easy is an asshole.