If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, then it goes here.
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.
4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "
I'm not sure on what it specifically means the word "anti-advice", but if it's along the line of excluding possibly useless models, then sure, it's anti-advice but it's still useful.
Yeah, but if it only works for him and a few others, and not for everyone else, can you still say that it's a good control model?
The argument from Brillyant to me seems like: any sufficiently analyzed control model is indistinguishable from a physics model. Which is true, but useless. What I want to know, and the added value of a control vs physics point of view, is which and where are the hidden knobs and levers that controls intake and consumptions.
Brillyant named some, I named others.
I think we can simply dissolve the question by saying:
CI = willpower + feedback from exercise + feedback from previous meals + feedback from fat cells + genetic predispositions + environmental factor + unknown unknows
CO = willpower + feedback from previous exercise + feedback from NEAT + feedback from food + genetic factors absorption defects + unknown unknows
CI - CO = weight gains.
Is this better?
The paragraph you wrote has the potential to make a reader believe they have less agency about weight loss and thus be less motivated to do the straightforward actions that the CICO model recommends.
While you claim to steelman you don't provide any arguments for which you believe that isn't the case and why believing no-CICO would be better for someone who wants to lose weight.