The first 20 miinutes of this video does a decent job covering CICO.
https://youtu.be/jXXGxoNFag4
I’m not sure about the science behind calories in/calories out, but I watched the first 20 minutes of that video and Dr. Fung didn’t convince me that it’s bad science.
I get that he thinks hormones and insulin level are the keys to avoiding type 2 diabetes and the accompanying obesity epidemic. But I don’t understand how he connects his statement that the body has no known receptors for calories, so the number of calories you eat does not affect weight gain or loss. He talks about how the body shows a physiological response to eating sugar, but no similar physiological response to eating calories and, therefore, the body is not aware of how many calories you’re eating. Doesn’t sound right to me.
I also feel that his criticisms of ci/co are weak:
1. He says that since the American public has been told about the ci/co method for years, and since the obesity levels are higher than ever, that is proof that the ci/co method doesn’t work. That conclusion doesn’t logically follow from his premise.
2. In a single sentence he dismisses all contradictory science by saying:
“It was all driven by the food industry, in my mind. Because it’s not driven by the scientists, other than those that have been paid off by the industry.”
I haven’t done the research, but I don’t believe that.
3. He makes a donuts vs. kale salad comparison a couple of times. His assumption is that the ci/co method doesn’t differentiate between donuts and a kale salad. He does the same thing with donuts and salmon. Though even he admits that everyone know the kale/salmon is more nutritious than donuts.
But his serving sizes are way off. He compares a kale salad to “a couple of donuts” - but a fair ci/co comparison would be a single serving of kale salad AND salmon (130 cal) to 1/2 donut (that’s a Dunkin glazed - 260 cal per donut).
The interviewer asks him about people who maintain a 5000 calorie diet and still don’t gain weight, but he doesn’t expand on that issue. If, for 90 days, someone’s daily intake is 3000 cal of kale and salmon vs vitamins and 1000 cal of donuts - I would expect that kale/salmon eater would be a overweight guy with good blood work, and the donut eater would be a thin guy with bad nutrition. If you can still get fat while eating only kale/salmom, then isn’t it calories that make the difference?
4. He dismisses the ci/co theory by arguing that, if it were true, then all people would need to do to be thin is to eat low calorie food (made with chemicals ) and, since that is not happening, he concludes the ci/co method doesn’t work. However, he doesn’t address the fact that most people aren’t eating low calorie foods and aren’t eating less calories than they burn.
I can understand trying out his methods to try and avoid/cure type 2 diabetes, but I'm not convinced by him that ci/co is phony science.