> You can temporarily make your weight go up by guzzling a load of alcohol and eating when you're not hungry, just like you can temporarily make it go down by starving yourself.
> CICO is a law of physics.
I would argue that neither does B follow from A, nor does A follow from B. It's perfectly compatible with CICO if your weight does NOT go up even after guzzling a load of alcohol and eating when you're not hungry. It's also totally compatible with CICO if you starve yourself and your weight does not go down.
I'd argue you still have some metabolic problems if you aren't "magically and effortlessly" normal weight and able to stay there doing what you're doing currently.
But that might just entail doing this for the next 4-7 years, until all the PUFAs in your body's tissues are turned over, during which all related problems will slowly "magically" go away one by one.
Also, on your trend, it does seem to go down except for that last reading. I think you'd need more data points to tell. But it's definitely mostly looking good, maybe that last reading is just an outlier?
> Also, on your trend, it does seem to go down except for that last reading. I think you'd need more data points to tell. But it's definitely mostly looking good, maybe that last reading is just an outlier?
I agree. I'm going to give it another week at least. But I had roughly a week's data and I felt like writing essays today. No Willpower! (And possibly hypomania-related overconfidence...)
> I would argue that neither does B follow from A, nor does A follow from B. It's perfectly compatible with CICO if your weight does NOT go up even after guzzling a load of alcohol and eating when you're not hungry. It's also totally compatible with CICO if you starve yourself and your weight does not go down.
And I would absolutely agree. But it would require your metabolism to adjust very quickly.
> You can temporarily make your weight go up by guzzling a load of alcohol and eating when you're not hungry, just like you can temporarily make it go down by starving yourself.
> CICO is a law of physics.
I would argue that neither does B follow from A, nor does A follow from B. It's perfectly compatible with CICO if your weight does NOT go up even after guzzling a load of alcohol and eating when you're not hungry. It's also totally compatible with CICO if you starve yourself and your weight does not go down.
I'd argue you still have some metabolic problems if you aren't "magically and effortlessly" normal weight and able to stay there doing what you're doing currently.
But that might just entail doing this for the next 4-7 years, until all the PUFAs in your body's tissues are turned over, during which all related problems will slowly "magically" go away one by one.
Also, on your trend, it does seem to go down except for that last reading. I think you'd need more data points to tell. But it's definitely mostly looking good, maybe that last reading is just an outlier?
> Also, on your trend, it does seem to go down except for that last reading. I think you'd need more data points to tell. But it's definitely mostly looking good, maybe that last reading is just an outlier?
I agree. I'm going to give it another week at least. But I had roughly a week's data and I felt like writing essays today. No Willpower! (And possibly hypomania-related overconfidence...)
> I would argue that neither does B follow from A, nor does A follow from B. It's perfectly compatible with CICO if your weight does NOT go up even after guzzling a load of alcohol and eating when you're not hungry. It's also totally compatible with CICO if you starve yourself and your weight does not go down.
And I would absolutely agree. But it would require your metabolism to adjust very quickly.
My metabolism seems to adjust even before I make the dietary change, just from knowing my plans, sometimes. Especially when fasting.