A calorie is NOT a calorie.

And that’s why the concept of CICO is flawed.

  1. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    Fatty cope.
    You eat less you get thin, simple.

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      Based

      https://i.imgur.com/RQbkCKW.jpg

      And that’s why the concept of CICO is flawed.

      Fats use some academic discrepancies to use as excuses to stay fat. Like whatever, drop another 200 calories, walk another 10 minutes. No one is trying to get you into.a 2 lb weight range

  2. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    he didn't disprove it in his interview though, he mentioned that eating high refined carbs causes problems with the insulin which results in side effects. he didn't talk about whole foods, click bait title

  3. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    A calorie is actually a kcalorie.

  4. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    Explain how I lost 12kg in 12 weeks by eating 1500cal of fried shit if CICO isn't true?
    Of course you won't because you're a gay

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      explain why I gained 20kg by eating 2000 junk food calories and lost 20kg by eating 2000 keto calories.
      good luck and no, I’m not too dumb to count calories
      Also, here

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        Because you were eating more than 2000 junk food calories, fatties always grossly underestimate their calorie intake.

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          what part of “I’m not too dumb to count calories” is it you don’t understand?

          • 4 days ago
            Anonymous

            When a dumb retard says he isn't dumb, that doesn't change the fact he is still a dumb retard. Just like when a manlet says he isn't short.

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          >fatties always grossly underestimate their calorie intake.
          this

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        >explain why I gained 20kg by eating 2000 junk food calories and lost 20kg by eating 2000 keto calories.
        never happened

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          yes it did. you pea brain morons are funny

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        You weren't measuring right fatass, I lost 20lb eating nothing but fast food.

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          explain to me how 2 pizzas a day (1=just shy of 1000kcal) is difficult to measure?
          that’s all I ate

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            >that’s all I ate
            doubt.jpg

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            >1=just shy of 1000k cal
            Dude.
            On average most pizza slices are 300 calories.
            At 8 slices that's 2400 CALORIES you stupid fuck.
            Did you also double check with restaurant and see that their nutrition info did as a matter of fact say 1000 cal because if you didn't, buddy you made an assumption and were horribly wrong and off the mark.
            Is this a bait thread? Are you intentionally being retarded?

            • 5 days ago
              Anonymous

              Oh and given that you are 2 pizzas, that's a total of 4800 calories a day.

            • 5 days ago
              Anonymous

              lol maybe in murica but not where I live

              >that’s all I ate
              doubt.jpg

              arguing with IST is pointless

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                >German
                Oh well that explains it.
                Probably the low protein to carb ratio too, that was just dumb on your part. I mean they listed the eggwhite content before the sugar content. I assume this is from a local pizza place, but I still need to ask for which place it is because something about that nutrition chart is fishy.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                it’s frozen pizza. picrel to be exact

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                A. Really you ate frozen pizza? You could have gone out and eaten any fast food and you ate frozen pizza?
                B. https://www.frozenfoodsbiz.com/plastic-contamination-prompts-oetker-pizza-recall-in-german/
                Could have very well been estrogen from plastic.

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                i posted my ice cream serving that was roughly 200 calories and got completely shit on for being "bad at counting calories"
                When it was literally pre packaged ice cream and thats the actual count.
                Theyre used to one ice cream serving being 1000 calories and pizza is 4000.

            • 4 days ago
              Anonymous

              most cheap thin crust frozen pizzas are 1000 calories or so, and many of them have 50g of protein.

          • 4 days ago
            Anonymous

            A single slice of Costco pizza is 760kcal

            • 4 days ago
              Anonymous

              God i love costco pizza

        • 4 days ago
          Anonymous

          Same
          I ate pic related which has about 1k Calories and 80g Protein
          on top of that a 5 Scoop Protein shake with water landing me around 1500Kcal and 180g Protein a day

          If you are german go ahead and try it thank me later

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        Bullshit story or bullshit caloric estimates, you tell us.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        what part of “I’m not too dumb to count calories” is it you don’t understand?

        explain to me how 2 pizzas a day (1=just shy of 1000kcal) is difficult to measure?
        that’s all I ate

        you're a dumb moron and you should stop posting on IST

        • 4 days ago
          Anonymous

          moron I lost 70kg in 1.5 years. Got skin surgery and am now fitter than most retards on IST
          But go ahead, tell me how to lose weight

          • 4 days ago
            Anonymous

            post body

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        >it's a ketard
        lol

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        you are lying.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        Oh look, another lying keto cultist retard.

        CICO may not be an EXACT number but the amount of influence carbs or anything else has on your diet is essentially almost nothing. It might be the difference of 200 calories based on the nutrients involved.

        Or in other words, it essentially doesn't matter.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        Probably because you're maintenance is below 2000 and you were eating a caloric surplus.

        Keto makes your body burn the fat regardless, but it's bad for your kidneys so you shouldn't do that.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        come to the lab tomorrow so we can run examinations on your disgusting coping ass fatty. you might win a nobel for disproving the1st fucking law of thermodynamics.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        Well, either you're lying through your teeth, are a retard that can't count or you just managed to break one of the fundamental laws of the universe
        I'm not particularly inclined to believe the latter

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        you didn't
        there i explained

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        what part of “I’m not too dumb to count calories” is it you don’t understand?

        Did you weigh and record every food item you put in your mouth and log it in a food tracker? Can we see the log?
        I'm anti-CICO and I would love to have this data as a piece of evidence in future.

  5. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    wow, it is as if these are measurements are estimates used to keep track of an average humans needs, which is just a baseline and each human is largely unique, it sound like as if keeping track of them is a PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

  6. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Threads like these prove that ketosis causes severe brain damage.

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      Keto is not a workout diet in the first place.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        It's not healthy either

        • 4 days ago
          Anonymous

          Yes.

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      >literally lost weight
      try feeding them some food next time

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        >People who lost weight gained weight

  7. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    CICO works the rest is how easy or difficult it will be to keep the weight off.

  8. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Based op. Debunking calories makes NPCs seethe like info about the clotshot they took.

  9. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Why is everyone suddenly attacking CICO is it a fatty discord raid? morons, put the fork down and you'll loose weight it's that easy

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      It's cheating fatties that can't handle the grind and keto cultist retards that love saying absolutely retarded shit. Like this gay:

      explain why I gained 20kg by eating 2000 junk food calories and lost 20kg by eating 2000 keto calories.
      good luck and no, I’m not too dumb to count calories
      Also, here

      that is claiming identical calories on a keto diet is a difference of 90lbs of weightloss.

      It's always fatties or keto retards going after CICO

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      CICO is a lie from the sugar industry. Most smart people have been aware of this for a while. Especially with the internet it's very easy to figure out CICO is phony.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        Spotted the keto retard

        • 4 days ago
          Anonymous

          How many safe and effective jabs are you on, NPC?

          • 4 days ago
            Anonymous

            Hahaha he doesn't even deny it. Enjoy your heart disease in your 30's.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        what the fuck is a "reducing salad" lmao

        if it's the one in picrel, the greens/veggies are basically negligible, and eggs will net about 175 calories for 2.5 fucking eggs lmao.

        6tsp of sugar is 96 calories but has no protein or nutrients. You could easily lose weight eating this much sugar a day instead of a salad, but you will also lose muscle because you're blowing your Calories in on junk.

        Eating sugar by the handful is a meme and you're just baiting, anyways.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        people who think this are too stupid to properly calculate their TDEE/Macros

  10. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    it isn't that cico is flawed, it is the calories out is hard to impossible to measure for a given persons expected capabilities
    obviously using averages on calorie usage from normal people going about their normal lives and then calibrating that to weight is going to be wrong when you compare it to people eating diets far away from average and actively trying to lose weight

    still doesnt negate fatty cope that eating less calories is always a good way to lose weight and only under very specific and controlled environments can you eat a lot of calories and not gain weight and that environment does not include a 2 pizza breakfast

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      >eating less calories is always a good way to lose weight
      It isn't.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        >metabolism
        in the trash it goes

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        absolute brainded take. Its weird how all the studies where they controll kcal intake, and on a deficit lose weight. and the ones on a greater kcal deficit lose more weight.

        those kidna takes are only done by people who either dont read research, or ignore most of the research, and only read the studies some chiropractor with a "Dr" in his name shows

  11. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Move more, eat less.
    You cannot defy the laws of physics. Your body will use energy and when you are spending more energy than you're taking in, the body will use stored energy instead.

    This thread is stupid.

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      >B-but what if you ate nothing but sugar!
      I have actually heard ketards make this argument before. I guess the problem is that CICO relies on not being completely retarded, hence why so many people have a problem with it. Just eat normal food that doesn't come out of packages, count your calories, and take in less than you expend. Follow those three simple rules and you basically can't fuck up weight loss. It's only when some idiot that thinks himself far smarter than he is comes along and has a brilliant idea on how to improve this simple process that it fails. Those idiots always seem to be fat fucks or on their way to becoming fat fucks, so it's pretty easy to ignore them.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        You dont have to eat "nothing but sugar" to increase visceral fat from fructose despite no change in weight

        • 4 days ago
          Anonymous

          Not the guy youre replying too, but please post the research, id love to see it

  12. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Video is an absolute retarded take but not completely wrong. Here let me help you.
    Sugar bad. That's the only correct thing from the video.
    As for "are all calories the same?" garbage title. Yes... They literally are, a calorie is a unit of measurement. 1 calorie will always be equal to 1 calorie. The title of this video is about as retarded as asking "Are all miles the same?". Sure the scenery may change, but the length will always be equal.
    Sugar being unhealthy has absolutely 0 correlation with CICO being incorrect or not. The man did not disprove in any way shape or form that eating less calories can in fact make you lose weight, but that's to be expected you can't exactly break the laws of physics just because "sugar is le bad".

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      >The title of this video is about as retarded as asking "Are all miles the same?". Sure the scenery may change, but the length will always be equal.
      Umm...a mile on flat ground is not equal to a mile on a 45 degree incline as far as exercise goes. The same way that video is discussing if all calories are the same as far as human diets and weight loss goes.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        Ok one at a time then since you seem to be missing the whole point of my rant.

        No incorrect, one mile will still be one mile. If you're measuring the ground it doesn't matter if it curves or bends, in order for you to measure the mile it will still have to be equal, your car won't care if the road is bent or curved it will still measure 1 mile when it travels said distance. Like I said, the scenery may change, but if you're measuring a mile of ground then you can't measure two stretches of ground for 1 mile and get different results. The stretches of ground you measured must both be equally 1 mile.

        >1 calorie will always be equal to 1 calorie
        this demonstrable false as the calorie calculation as a leftover from early dumber times that didn't take into account digestive realities
        eat 2000 calories of protein or 2000 calories of sugar per day see how you feel
        and do you think the effects of drinking 2000 calories of corn syrup sodas is the same as glugging down 2000 calories worth of olive oil

        A calorie is a unit of measurement, it's not sugar and it's not olive oil and it's not corn syrup. But I'll explain it further because you can't seem to grasp the math here.
        A calorie is a unit of measurement, and it is generally measured with the following "heat needed to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree Celsius (or one kelvin)."
        So regardless of what you ingested, when you body produces enough heat to warm up 1ºC/F of water, contrats your just generated 1 calorie.
        ------------------------------------------------------
        The title of the video is retarded because it's making you think calories aren't the same, they literally are. The only thing the video is correct about is that sugar is bad for you and you shouldn't eat it. That has absolutely nothing to do with how much body heat you produce ffs.
        Once again, if you don't ingest enough energy sources for your body, you will have to find that energy somewhere, usually the body itself. This is irrefutable and impossible to ignore, not only is it defined by the laws of thermodynamic it is literally reproducible, just don't eat at all your body will start to canibalize itself until you can no longer continue on that process and die.

        • 4 days ago
          Anonymous

          >No incorrect, one mile will still be one mile. If you're measuring the ground it doesn't matter if it curves or bends, in order for you to measure the mile it will still have to be equal, your car won't care if the road is bent or curved it will still measure 1 mile when it travels said distance. Like I said, the scenery may change, but if you're measuring a mile of ground then you can't measure two stretches of ground for 1 mile and get different results. The stretches of ground you measured must both be equally 1 mile.
          You're stupid, huh? A mile is not a mile to your car. The energy expenditure going uphill is greater than going downhill or on flat ground. The gas consumed that makes your car run doesn't consider it the same either. It doesn't matter if it measures the same because it doesn't function the same.

          The topic is fitness and weight loss in regards to calories. All calories are not equal as they have different effects on your body depending on how you get them. I'm not saying this to discredit CICO, only to discredit your assertion that all miles or all calories are identical. They are not. The same way two humans that weigh identically can vary dramatically in their actual weight distribution. Someone who weighs 200lbs could be morbidly obese or normal weight depending on how tall they are.

          • 4 days ago
            Anonymous

            "The energy expenditure going uphill is greater than going downhill"... So? Do you measure energy with miles? No? Then 1 mile will still be 1 mile...
            Just because;
            ```
            1 straight mile = 0.2 galons
            1 uphill mile = 0.4 galons
            doesn't mean that;
            1 mile == 1 mile
            ```
            On the topic, all calories are in fact equal... They are as I've described "heat needed to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree Celsius (or one kelvin).". The calorie itself has no effect on your body, it is just a way for us to (imprecisely might I add) measure our energy expenditure, that's because we can't accurately measure it any other way (like for example measuring amino acids).
            Finally, just because a fat short guy can weight idk 100lbs and a tall slender guy can also weigh 100lbs does in no way shape or form mean that they don't both weigh literally the same. 100lbs=100lbs
            Calories are a unit of measurement, they are a mathematical concept, therefore you cannot aproach it with any other mentality. 1 calorie=1 calorie. 1 mile = 1 mile. 100lbs=100lbs.

            • 4 days ago
              Anonymous

              You're an NPC. NPC brains are so programmable they can be taught to ignore reality.

              The reality you're ignoring is that a measurement (e.g. calorie, gram, liter) cannot be separated from the substance being measured. A gram of silver has a number of differences from a gram of gold because they're physically different substances. Measurements don't make different things equivalent.

              A calorie of powdered/blended/liquified carbohydrate isn't even equivalent to a calorie of solid carbohydrate. That's without even getting into carb vs fat or different fatty acids. Food can only be judged as a substance, not a measurement.

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                Bruh, 1g of silver weighs literally the same as 1g of gold. They both weigh 1g. Their colors and sizes may differ, but you don't measure those with grams, so they don't matter for the 1g measurement. Are you literally this bad at math?
                When you're talking about calories you're talking about calories, heat, not what produces it. You can also get heat from burning coal, you can also measure it with calories. Doesn't matter. 1 calorie=1 calorie.

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                People are measuring fat, protein, and carbs with "calories". Not heat.

                Fat protein and carbs are physically different substances with very different effects on the body. For example no matter how many "calories" of sugar you eat it can't be turned into muscle.

                You've been tricked. It's a very simple magic trick, they used "calorie" measurements as a distraction to get you to forget about reality. The substances being measured are in fact different.

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                Calories are a great way to figure out how much carb and fat you should be eating. Your protein should always be consistent 0.8-1.1 per lb of LBM.

                Most ketotards have no idea that CICO is actually the only proper way to do keto. You're just getting full off fat and protein and accidentally eat at a deficit because you probably weigh 600 pounds.

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                1g of silver would weigh less than 1g of gold because the silver has more buoyant force lifting it up because it's less dense
                >Inb4 brainlets who don't know the difference between weight and mass

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                We measure grams by weight because we deal with constant gravity on Earth, dumbass. The 1g of silver will be slightly larger than the 1g of gold.

            • 4 days ago
              Anonymous

              you are an npc arent you
              that we are even measuring food in calories is an outdated relic from the past that has many problems but we can compensate for that nowadays
              your body is not a machine for heating water 1°, its a machine to move about and survive and most of that is done via chemical transformations, you can reduce all that to base energy costs in joules and yes even recalculate that to calories but to keep coming back to heating water is retarded

              >that's because we can't accurately measure it any other way
              yes we can you idiot, its not even that hard merely impractical, it just requires collecting and measuring all your shit and staying in an enclosed room where your oxygen usages can be measured

              and as the other anon pointed out to you with the car/mile explanation in the discussion regarding weight loss/gain, calories are not the same

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                name a single way to universally measure energy in food then dumbass
                >w-well it depends on the person
                holy shit its almost like we use calories because it always works fat fuck

        • 4 days ago
          Anonymous

          you are stupid
          your body is a calorimeter that literally burns your food to heat water is whats your argument
          we are talking about cico and because average people don't have labgear for accurate measurement my counter argument is that the co measurement is inaccurate because it doesnt take into account the digestive effect of the type of calories you eat
          which is centered on two main types either direct energy requirements in digestion or simply not digesting the food at all and shitting it out
          your body also doesnt exist to heat water if anything bodyheat is a byproduct of your chemical operations

          • 4 days ago
            Anonymous

            Not the guy youre talking too, but the body isnt a closed system. and a calories isnt strictly a calorie, but it still doesnt disprove CICO. theres just some complexity to it, that the anti CICO cant wrap their head around

            • 4 days ago
              Anonymous

              >but it still doesnt disprove CICO
              this board doesnt have id's so its easier to get caught up in the convo, but i never said cico is wrong
              i specifically stressed the complexity that muddles it because co is difficult to measure and food labeling uses outdated misleading measurements

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      >1 calorie will always be equal to 1 calorie
      this demonstrable false as the calorie calculation as a leftover from early dumber times that didn't take into account digestive realities
      eat 2000 calories of protein or 2000 calories of sugar per day see how you feel
      and do you think the effects of drinking 2000 calories of corn syrup sodas is the same as glugging down 2000 calories worth of olive oil

  13. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    its incredible watching this ketoman go on a tantrum. like watching a spaz monkey putting square inside circle hole kek please continue this thread

  14. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    >Reduced thermodynamic efficiency will result in increased weight loss.
    thermodynamics bros...

  15. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Dr. Lustig is a joke, hes litterally known for cherry picking studies and using animal studies to push his point.

    i use him as a litmus test for dumbasses. if they follow him, they dont know shit about nutrition

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      The statement "Dr.Lustig is a joke" is even better in German

  16. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    weird how all the fat people I know are constantly eating sweets and drinking sugary drinks
    must be a coincidence

  17. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    >another fatty cope thread
    yawn

  18. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    CICO IRREVOCABLY DESTROYED

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      "CICO is destroyed"
      >somehow it always work in research, on diets. especially in metabolic ward studies.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        It's destroyed in every conceivable manner you stupid fuck. Had you spent time watching the videos and learning you wouldn't be posting. Go spend time counting the 'calories' coming out your ass.

        • 4 days ago
          Anonymous

          its not, you just choose to close your ears for the other side. I still havent seen one single study where people gain weight on a caloric deficit.

          the anti CICO people uses a bunch of mechanistic studies, usually done on animals, and completely ignore all the research on diets where people lose the expected amount of weight by closely monitoring their intake.
          The anti CICO people cant fathom there are some complexity to the topic and just go " ITS ALL WRONG" when its not, and it works very well. Cant see the forest for the trees.

          • 4 days ago
            Anonymous

            You don't need any studies you stupid fuck how dense are you to not understand that a calorie is a measurement of heat energy nothing more. Therefore it's not possible to say I ate 2220 calories and think this is the total energy you a human derived for use. The videos I linked cover in exhaustive detail all of these points and more. I'm not going to continually type it out for you idiots on every thread.

            • 4 days ago
              Anonymous

              not involved with this debate but maybe the arguement "1 gram of carbohydrates/protein is 4 calories and 1 gram of fat is 9 calories" might be usefull

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                A calorie of powdered carbohydrate isn't equal to a calorie of solid carbohydrate. That's without even comparing different macros.

                The belief that calorie is a useful measurement for predicting how food interacts with the human body is false.

            • 4 days ago
              Anonymous

              >i linked to 2 hours of youtube videoes cause im too braindead to make a good argument. or even post research.
              >i expect everyone to watch my videoes. Cause therye definetly not made by a guy ignoring most of the research on the topic, to push and sell something

              im not the dumbass here. just cause your simple minded doesnt mean CICO doesnt work

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah you have nothing of value to say. How many 'Calories' are being consumed when nutritional labels are allowed to be off by 20 percent. Account for protein's thermic effect. Realise protein may not be used for energy so tell me what percentage becomes ATP. Correctly calculate your fluctuations in bmr. Use a bomb calorimeter to burn your shit each time. Calculate your body composition. Boring go watch the video and fuck off

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                Most people diets are extremely regular, and doesnt change much. the thermic effect of protein is neglible, and most people eat low amounts of protein. everyone who uses CICO knows about the thermic effect of protein, and it still works well. and the fact that you think you have to be accurate within 1kcal for it to work is an absolute joke.
                You think that a system has to be perfect for it to work. it doesnt. this isnt theoretical physics.

                theres also plenty of studies that show pretty much same weight reduction, with wildly different macros, as long as the caloric intake is equated. but somehow these studies are always ignored

                https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11029975/
                https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15277154/

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                >https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/1/23/4596906
                "Under planned isoenergetic conditions, as expected, both dietary patterns resulted in similar weight loss and changes in body composition."

                im still waiting for one ofthese studies to show a major difference, if CICO dont work. or even a study where people gain weight on a caloric deficit

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                >https://www.jacc.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.08.050
                "Under isocaloric conditions, VLCHF and HCLF diets result in similar weight loss"

                man, somehow it just keeps working. Its almost like CICO works

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0939475310000323
                Somehow when the researchers provided the food, from a completely diffrent diet, but calculated it to maintain their weight, it did. and when they change it to a deficit they lost weight.

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                >https://www.jacc.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.08.050
                "Under isocaloric conditions, VLCHF and HCLF diets result in similar weight loss"

                man, somehow it just keeps working. Its almost like CICO works

                >https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/1/23/4596906
                "Under planned isoenergetic conditions, as expected, both dietary patterns resulted in similar weight loss and changes in body composition."

                im still waiting for one ofthese studies to show a major difference, if CICO dont work. or even a study where people gain weight on a caloric deficit

                Most people diets are extremely regular, and doesnt change much. the thermic effect of protein is neglible, and most people eat low amounts of protein. everyone who uses CICO knows about the thermic effect of protein, and it still works well. and the fact that you think you have to be accurate within 1kcal for it to work is an absolute joke.
                You think that a system has to be perfect for it to work. it doesnt. this isnt theoretical physics.

                theres also plenty of studies that show pretty much same weight reduction, with wildly different macros, as long as the caloric intake is equated. but somehow these studies are always ignored

                https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11029975/
                https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15277154/

                This is what i mean by anti-CICO people being dumbasses. They argue mechanistic research, saying its wrong. Yet, its so commonly calculated and proved to work when used on people.

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                Its not just mechanistic carbohydrate restriction increases expenditure independent of calories.
                https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/151/3/482/6020167

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, if you go on pubmed you can litterally see the comments that shows issues with this review from Ludwig. This is why i say hes heavily critiqued
                "Of the 6 trials included in the >17-day analysis, 3 used the doubly labeled water (DLW) method that estimates TEE via the average daily rate of CO2 production "
                >https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8491863/

                btw, Ludwig is one of the few researchers i see where people keep posting research about his studies, cause he keeps ignoring glaring issues.

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                > posting research about his studies
                i ment to say "posting research showing mistakes in his studies"

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                >WRC necessitates confinement of participants to a small respiratory chamber, an artificial setting that strongly constrains physical activity. Nonresting energy expenditure—importantly including the amount and efficiency of physical activity—is thought to mediate adaptive thermogenesis (5). In a carefully controlled comparative study of long-term energy expenditure, DLW was shown to be more accurate than WRC under varying conditions (6).
                https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/151/8/2497/6345253
                Locking people up in a room is more accurate? Seems dubious

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                i just argued that double label water methods show huge errors. which it does.
                also how would 120kcal hinder weight loss on a 500kcal deficit? i still havent seen any studies where theyre at a kcal deficit and gain weight.
                Ludwig keeps making reviews to fit his views, so he can push the carb-insulin model, even though the model is absolutely horrible at predicting weight loss. where CICO doesnt have the same issues. and consistently shows to work and make people lose/gain/maintain weight by calculating their needs.

                and you still ignore all the research where they do isocaloric diets or weightloss diets, and how it works so consistently
                Again, anti-CICO people arguing neglible stuff, cause they cant fathom that a method can work unless its 100% accurate.

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                Seems like both measures have issue. And it doesn't need to be a huge effect. 15 calories a day over a few decades is the whole obesity epidemic

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                its not. cause you burn more kcals as you gain weight, so it will plateu. 15 kcal wont cause any major weight gain, unless you keep increasing the kcal intake.
                also why do you say a 15kcal excessive intake would lead to major difference if you dont believe in CICO? are you against or for CICO?

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Regarding TEE effect size, the 95% CIs for their estimate among trials >2 wk in duration [63 (24, 102) or 70 (20, 119) kcal/d] overlap with our estimate (111 [28 to 194] kcal/d), lending general support to a prediction of the carbohydrate–insulin model (11) that withstands these methodologic issues.

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                >WRC necessitates confinement of participants to a small respiratory chamber, an artificial setting that strongly constrains physical activity. Nonresting energy expenditure—importantly including the amount and efficiency of physical activity—is thought to mediate adaptive thermogenesis (5). In a carefully controlled comparative study of long-term energy expenditure, DLW was shown to be more accurate than WRC under varying conditions (6).
                https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/151/8/2497/6345253
                Locking people up in a room is more accurate? Seems dubious

                >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26638192/
                Substantial weight loss was achieved overall, but a significant diet × IR(insulin resistant) status interaction was not observed

                >https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673150/
                In this 12-month weight loss diet study, there was no significant difference in weight change between a healthy low-fat diet vs a healthy low-carbohydrate diet, and neither genotype pattern nor baseline insulin secretion was associated with the dietary effects on weight loss.

                a key element of a model is prediction. and the carb-insulin model is an absolute joke when it comes to predicting weight gain/loss

                yet, the CICO model is easy to calculate and shows time and time again to predict weight loss/gain

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                or you just measure VO2 as the calories are used...

            • 4 days ago
              Anonymous

              just change calories to joules and its now an measurement of energy worked, change it to watt and its now electrical power. fiddle all you want it. keep arguin non-important schemantics

          • 4 days ago
            Anonymous

            >The anti CICO people cant fathom there are some complexity to the topic
            Huh? It's usually the CICO worshippers who want to oversimplify everything
            >just eat less, OK?
            >your TDEE is fixed, easily calculatable, and all you have to do is eat less calories than that
            >if you're not losing weight you're eating too much
            >hormones don't exist or have any effect on the calories you burn
            >short term weight loss proves CICO is the best way to stay healthy long term

            • 4 days ago
              Anonymous

              >just eat less
              why are fat people incapable of doing this? All this talk about shit when you just have to eat less

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                because they're lazy, stupid, and can't commit to any lifestyle changes.
                This thread is mostly retarded fatties who made a half assed attempt at losing weight but didn't because they're stupid. The ones that "tried" keto and failed to lose weight shill against keto and the ones that "tried" cico and failed to lose weight shill against cico

            • 4 days ago
              Anonymous

              No one says TDEE is fixed, absolutely no one. youre jsut making arguments up, on the spot.
              people with hashimotos can lose weight. MUH HORMONES is a litteral joke of an argument. people with PCOS can also lose weight. both of these conditions can lose weight with CICO, and does so in studies.
              and please show me how CICO is harmfull, long term. thats a hilarious argument.

              why do researchers predict weightloss, maintance and weight gain so easily and so consistently in research? cause CICO works. also, what would you say predicts weightloss, if CICO doesnt work?

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                >No one says TDEE is fixed
                >TDEE is constant btw because hormones don't exist or do anything
                >ignore every study where CICO is done long term and results in decreased metabolic health and worse body composition

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                Do you know what TDEE is? can you read, or are you having a schizophrenic episode?
                Where do i say TDEE is constant? and where do i say hormones have no effect? they do, but its mostly has to do with alteration of hunger signals, and NEAT. But you dont really read what i write, you read some of it, and just interpret it in your own head, to a way that fits your world view.
                every study where CICO is done long term and results in decreased metabolic health and worse body composition
                also if they lose weight with CICO wouldnt that prove that CICO works? and please post the study where the bodycomposition gets worse and their metabolic health does so too.

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                >and please post the study where the bodycomposition gets worse and their metabolic health does so too.
                They've already been posted in this thread and there are loads out there. It's not my job to educate you, fat retard.

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                all thats posted here are youtube videos. or did you mean the picture of the results of a study, so people cant look it up and see if its a good study or not?
                The reason you cant post "all those studies" is cause when kcals and protein is equated there isnt a difference. you only see a difference where theres a difference in protein intake

                which is why research on protein equated diets so no difference. heres a metabolic ward study, the most accurate type of study you can get
                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC333231/

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                >10 days
                >not ad lib

  19. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    retard ketolards poisoning what Lustig is saying. Does anyone really believe that equal calories of HFCS vs fruit are equally healthy?

    CICO cultists have sugar industry brain maggots, fatties need to stop finding excuses and eat less

    cope and seethe and sage

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      were not talking about health....did you just change the topic cause you cant keep arguing the one everyone else is arguing about?

      also what kinda dumbass listen to Dr.Lustig? theres a reason why hes heavily critiqued

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        >theres a reason why hes heavily critiqued
        >t. NPC

  20. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Are ketards the flat earthers of IST?
    Both post absolutetly retarded shit and when asked for any proof just vomit random cropped infographics from who knows where that no one can be fucked to read

  21. 4 days ago
    Anonymouse

    Am right in thinking protein is little different when counting calories? I would think a reasonable amount would be used to maintain tissue and not be used for energy.

  22. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    >same calories
    >same macros
    >group eating powdered food is obese
    >group eating solid food is lean
    CICO WILL NEVER RECOVER

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      >mice study, not human study
      >have to result to absolute insane, unrealistic, scenarios.
      >doesnt understand that no one eats like that
      >dont know that most people eat actual food

      yeah, your dumb study in mice, with no basis in reality definetly trumps studies in humans
      its like you live in a fantasy world with fantasy scenarios. i dont expect nothing else from anti-CICO people. its hard to live in reality when youre mentally ill

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        Laws of physics don't apply to mice?

        • 4 days ago
          Anonymous

          how is physics relevant? are human bodies a closed system?
          Also you clearly dont read muych research if you think mice studies carry well over to humans.
          and again, no one eats like that. you kep ignoring how easy CICO calculates the needs and keep predicting weightloss/gain. which is a key element to a model. see

          >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0939475310000323
          Somehow when the researchers provided the food, from a completely diffrent diet, but calculated it to maintain their weight, it did. and when they change it to a deficit they lost weight.

          >https://www.jacc.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.08.050
          "Under isocaloric conditions, VLCHF and HCLF diets result in similar weight loss"

          man, somehow it just keeps working. Its almost like CICO works

          >https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/1/23/4596906
          "Under planned isoenergetic conditions, as expected, both dietary patterns resulted in similar weight loss and changes in body composition."

          im still waiting for one ofthese studies to show a major difference, if CICO dont work. or even a study where people gain weight on a caloric deficit

          Most people diets are extremely regular, and doesnt change much. the thermic effect of protein is neglible, and most people eat low amounts of protein. everyone who uses CICO knows about the thermic effect of protein, and it still works well. and the fact that you think you have to be accurate within 1kcal for it to work is an absolute joke.
          You think that a system has to be perfect for it to work. it doesnt. this isnt theoretical physics.

          theres also plenty of studies that show pretty much same weight reduction, with wildly different macros, as long as the caloric intake is equated. but somehow these studies are always ignored

          https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11029975/
          https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15277154/

          Theres tons of more studies like that. i have yet to see researches failing to predict it.

          • 4 days ago
            Anonymous

            If cico is false in mice it's false in everything.

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      the only thing never recovering is your body from diabetes, you fat retard

  23. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    CICO is true, but it also isn't that simple.
    For example, if you consume a calorie and your gut can't take it into your blood and use it in any way, that's "calories out" when it comes out in your shit, or a calorie that was never "in" in the first place, depending on how you want to look at it. An example of this is fiber: humans don't break down fiber into a usable carbohydrate and so it just comes out in our shit. It's still counted as a calorie in the labeling though (mostly because American food labeling is descended from livestock feed labeling regulations. Not kidding, look it up)

    Keto sometimes appears to work just because your body has an upper limit on how much fat it can intake in one sitting based on bile production limitations. That's why when you do keto and really push a ton of high-fat food into just a few meals you get disgusting greasy shits. Any grease that's in your shit is a "calorie out" too. Cutting out sugar also eliminates the "sugar crash" hunger effect that most Americans experience 3-6 times per day, so it's a way they can trick themselves into snacking less often (ie, fewer calories in). Of course you should stop eating shit with sugar in it anyway so it's not like that's some magic keto uniquely brings to the table.

  24. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Let's assume you burn exactly 2200 calories each day for a month and you eat 2100 calories daily with the majority of the macro being carbs. Will you eventually:
    >Lose weight
    >Gain weight
    >Stay the same

  25. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Have you tried eating less?

  26. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    I have yet to hear a single argument against CICO that doesn't at least once mention eating nothing but pure sugar, as if that's something that sane, rational people often do. Also, never heard anyone argue against it that wasn't obviously a moron that can only speak in hyperbole.
    Why is the argument never "CICO is unreliable because Calories Out is a moving target that's near impossible to accurately measure and you have to rely on potentially faulty estimations?" Because that would be actual criticism of CICO. Instead, it's nothing but keto cultists and fat apologists insisting that it's possible to gain weight while eating below maintenance and failing to show even a single example.

  27. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    why is it only fat people who say CICO is bullshit?
    I never heard a skinny or fit person say that.

  28. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    A calorie is literally a calorie. You retards are trying to argue that a Joule in one case is not the same as a Joule in another.

    Think of it this way: A 2000mAh battery may last 18 hours in one phone while it only lasts 16 hours on another. Does that magically make that 2000 mAh battery different? No, it's the same fucking thing, just the machine it's in differs slightly, and no that doesn't mean measuring a battery in mAh is irrelevant or ineffective, it just means you're too retarded to consider more than one variable.

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      A calorie of one substance is different from a calorie of another substance.

      If you went to the grocery store would you pay the same price for a pound of ground beef as you do for a pound of ribeye? Why not? They weigh the same, so they're the same? Of course they are different. You know they are different.

      The substance being measured is ALWAYS more important than the measurement.

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      >1 calorie of protein
      >1 calorie of fat
      >1 calorie of carbs
      >1 calorie of refined carbs/sugar
      >1 calorie of fiber
      All of the above are processed differently by your body. You aren't a steam engine and your stomach isn't a furnace.

  29. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    That image looks fake as fuck.

  30. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    CICO worked for me when I did shitty OMAD
    Ate roughly 1300 calories from McDonalds every morning for breakfast then didnt eat anything else for the rest of the day (unless you count drinking a zero calorie monster later on)

  31. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Whoa it's almost as if the different macro nutrients have different roles in our body! Whoa man..

Your email address will not be published.