Assuming CICO works.
What can I do to optimize it?
As a short woman, calculating my TDEE put me around 1500 cal/day, to lose weight I need to eat 1000 cal.
So If I eat 70g of protein that's 280 calories, leaving me with 120g of carb ~480 cal and 30 g of fat ~300 cal.
So in total 220 g of food in a day to lose weight.
This by no way is enough to make someone feel full.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
>assuming thermodynamics works...
The human body is not a closed system, midwit.
This.
It doesn't need to be for thermodynamics to still apply. Basic knowledge moron.
>fat moronic addicts return to their addictions once the cameras turn off
WOOOOAAAH
>Assuming CICO works.
It doesn't.
increase protein and carbohydrate, decrease fat. lean meats and carbohydrate increase your energy expenditure while fat is basically useless for you at the moment. drink psyllium 2-3 tbs psyllium husk after your evening meal with lots of water.
schizo
>increase carbohydrate, decrease fat
Thank you, American government circa 1980.
im sure amerilards followed that advice
They did, as you can see.
The advice was very, very, very bad. Opposite of good advice somehow.
the fat content stayed the same at about 80g/day and a decrease in protein you fricking moron. all they did was increase calories from carbohydrate. kys fatso.
>tell people to eat low-fat
>it doesn't work
At some point it becomes dishonest to not admit failure.
Full and satiated are different.
35%+ of your calories from fat is not low fat you absolute Black person
Yeah it's impossible to get people to stop eating fat because it's essential. It's like telling people to eat low-protein food and then acting like they're disobedient idiots when they end up eating more carbs.
The only macros which can be removed from the diet are carbohydrate and alcohol.
>posts absolutely abysmal macro nutrient data
what are you even trying to say? That a low protein diet is bad? No shit moron.
Low-protein is bad. Low-fat is bad. Both of these diet approaches will cause obesity. That is because trying to reduce them is ignorant of biology. Fat and protein are both essential.
The cure for obesity is low-carb. Carb is not essential.
what causes obesity is calories moron.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29466592/
>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
>DIETFITS
That study had both groups eating about the same amount of carbs by the end. The "low-fat" group actually reduced carbs.
A silly study cited by silly people.
See here for the totality of evidence:
There are at least 39 modern RCTs that show significantly better weight loss with Iow-carb diets.
>full and satiated are different
I don't get what this adds to the conversation.
Those numbers are skewed because Reagan amenstied a bunch of Mexicans and they have been walking here, very slowly, ever since.
This guy gets it. I'm very lean and eat nearly 400g of carb a day. Eat satiating foods or high volume lowish cal foods, apples, oats, rice, vegetables, mushrooms, soup etc.
>cut calories
>it works
>stop cutting calories
>get fat again
>wtf it didn't work
>tell people to reduce calories
>it fails
>tell people to reduce carbs (unlimited calories)
>it works
>carbs (unlimited calories)
Well shit anon I think you just solved the energy crisis.
Now I just need to solve the literacy crisis.
>reduce carbs (unlimited calories)
>it works
Let me ask you. If someone ate one gallon of lard a day but also ate no carbs would they gain or lose weight? If you you say lose, you are moronic, and if you say gain then you are a dishonest liar.
>if i pretend my moronic analogy somehow relates to your post, you're wrong!
Midwit
just shows you're an idiot or a troll
I wish I had that one image where an anon basically ate nothing but butter for a month and lost weight.
>tell people to reduce calories
>it fails
>tell people to reduce calories
>it works
Do you know how fricking moronic you actually sound?
The low carb group was not told to reduce calories. They ate unlimited calories.
Same with this study.
Its pointless without measuring calorie intake. Restrict carbs is a lot harder than restricting fat. So people on a no carb diet are heavily restricted and if they lose weight its because they reduced calories more. It may actually harder to eat no carb than it is to eat at a deficit, because it eliminates so many foods that are a stable. While there is almost limitless junkfood and shit you can eat that has no fat.
>tell one group to eat unlimited calories
>tell other group to restrict calories
Which one should lose more weight according to CICO principles?
Culling people with BMIs of 30+ would work even better, just saying
Thats what Ozemp-ACK is for
Low fat isnt a synonym for calorie counting you moronic frick
>deflecting
>Needing a competition to lose weight in the first place
>No incentives to stay fit (outside of health benefits that they've already been ignoring) so they fall of the wagon (especially if they lost)
>Those that tried to stay fit didn't know that their BMR and TDEE would change over time and didn't adjust accordingly
This is assuming they also paid attention to marcos.
Nobody wants to be fat. It happens when people are tricked by liars.
Pic related.
sugar is anabolic
>3 tsp of sugar less than 1 apple
>put 40 tsp into a 16 oz. Coke
Great comparison to Johnny 12 apples who plows through an entire apple tree each week.
>this man physically himself from consuming too much by making him feel full sooner
>this making him eat less
>one of the few guys to keep the weight down
>this is proof cico doesnt wokr!!""!"111!
Physical mutilation of the digestive system causes weight loss via hormonal changes.
did they put them in a cage? That's the only way ur gonna be able to study CICO with non-athletes.
Your TDEE goes down slightly as you get older and need to eat even less (or exercise more) to keep up.
You are unfathomably moronic. You should be stripped of the privilege to vote, drive and appear in public unescorted. You should also be sterilized and your parents beaten.
Kek
Yes it fricking does
As you age, your body stops burning superfluous calories since your body learns that it's not a nomadic tribesman that might need to chase wild animals for food
Work out.
NO
Have sex.
dilate that pus filled ax wound
or don't might improve your odor
Nice digits
>This by no way is enough to make someone feel full.
Not with that attitude, b***h.
Satiety is a psychological function mediated by hormones. This is why Beach Bod Billy can pop an addie and cruise through the day on a tuna sandwich, 2 pedialytes and 3 hours of sleep.
220g of macronutrients isn’t the same as 220g of food because there’s water (and probably other stuff) in everything you eat. So an apple weighing 80g isn’t 80g of carbs
Part of your problem is assuming that you need to "feel full"
A lot of what makes you feel hungry or full is just a mental prompt, not grounded in your stomach actually needs.
If you let yourself "feel hungry" for half a week, your mind will catxh up to your body and you will be satisfied by the reduced amount you eat.
Finally, 500 calories may be a bit much to start off. If you arent even counting your calories, then do that for a week first, and notice that you probably arent even hitting your TDEE in the first place.
After that go down to -300 calories and see how far it can take you.
Also carb gay can't be more wrong. CICO is simple thermodynamics, and anyone who "doesnt lose weight because of it" isn't actually doing CICO.
>t. Lost 60 pounds while counting cals, lost traxk and gaines back 20, then lost 40 more
How is CICO even a debate? This is quite embarassing
CICO works, but telling people to fix their CICO doesn't work.
Treating weight control like a physical process (which it is) is far less effective than treating it like a physio-psychological one. Simply understanding the physics doesn't necessarily translate into ability to successfully diet. The reason people fail isn't primarily because they don't understand they need to control their intake, but because they fail to control the intake. Telling people to do CICO doesn't (always) work, because it doesn't come with the tools to control it. When people say 'CICO doesn't work', they aren't actually trying to refute the physics.
Exactly. Diet, exercise, changing your habits for both, being less lazy, being productive and doing something with your life, etc.
Everything requires discipline, commitment, and willing to change. It's why so many fats always fail to lose weight, they see eating 5 cakes as pleasurable and dieting as a painful annoyance, so they always lapse and blame "diet culture".
Agree with your main point, but cico isn't actually a matter of physics (aside from the fact that you either lose fat or die on an almost 0 cal intake). But you can easily have a high caloric intake and not get fat (high expenditure, high metabolism, malabsorption, etc). And CO can change depending on both the amount and quantity of CI.
>CO can change depending on both the amount and quantity of CI.
So what? Why do you think this matters? The less calories in, the greater the deficit will be. If you monitor your weight you can adjust it until you lose at a healthy rate. This isn't a science project where you have to calculate your calorie deficit curve against CI or something. It varying between people or that it isn't linearly does not matter at all.
I agree, CICO is not a diet, its just the principles
>So in total 220 g of food in a day to lose weight.
>implying 2000kcal diet will be 440g of food
Are you moronic? Food also contain a lot of water (and maybe fiber).
Why fat people are so fricking stupid?
>Food also contain a lot of water
Because at my kitchen I don't have fancy kits to calculate water content of food.
All I have is a scale.
70g of protein is not 70g of steak. Just read macros on the label, tard.
85g of steak will give you 26g of protein and 7.6g of fat for example. Rest is water.
https://www.verywellfit.com/the-best-ways-to-eat-steak-on-a-diet-3495219
>Just read macros on the label
My meat doesn't have label.
You can check usda database or other sources online.
mine has a "choking hazard" label
CICOgays don't have a basic idea of how biochemistry actually works, which if they understood how the Krebs cycle and the Randle cycle works, they'd realize that caloric density is a meaningless measure within the human body when bioavailability of energy is what should be examined.
>Werks for me tho
A flawed method can still get results. Having the ability and patience for carving a wood sculpture with a spoon doesn't lend credibility to whether your method is good.
Everyone acknowledges different foods are digested differently, literally no one says 100 calories of candy or broccoli is going to result in exactly 100 calories of energy. No one is saying that, its a straw man.
>bioavailablity of energy is what should be examined
No shit, genius. You are 80 iq if you think this is some revelation for CICO. That is what people are talking about when they say "calories in," counting calories is one of the more accurate ways to control that. If you are diabetic you may get less calories from fatty foods, but the only thing that matters in the end is CICO.
You are detached from reality.
The concept that 100 calories of sugar is no more fattening than 100 calories of broccoli has been mainstream dogma for over 50 years. This is the central tenet of CICO. Without this pillar the calorie religion collapses.
>100 calories of sugar is no more fattening than 100 calories of broccoli
Relatively, its not. For fat asses, they may get slightly more energy from the candy, and the speed its digested will have different affects. But in general if you eat less calories than you burn you will be close to losing weight. Its not exact and no one is saying it is. If you burn 2500 cals a day and you eat 2000 cals of candy you will lose weight. If you eat 2000 cals of broccoli you may lose slightly more and retain slightly more muscle, etc. No one is saying it would be exactly the same.
>Relatively, its not.
Great, I am glad we could settle that. CICO as described by Sugar Information Inc is canonical.
The problem with it is that it isn't true.
>The problem with it is that it isn't true.
What isn't true? Look at your pic, a spoonful of sugar is <50 calores. While a salad could have like 300-400 calories depending on whats in it, like dressing, nuts, cheese, croutons, etc. That pic at least is objectively correct. 50 calories is obviously less than 300-400.
You are argument a straw man that 100 calories of one food is EXACTLY the same as 100 calories of another food. No one is saying that. But its pretty obvious that having coffee with a little sugar is less than the average salad.
Calorie isn't a measure of obesogenicity.
Another straw man. The point is counting calories is that it is the best tool to control how much weight you will gain or lose. Its not a scientifically accurate way to measure the exact amount of energy you will derive from food. But if you have a diet where you eat certain types of food, and you count your calories as a certain amount, and you aren't losing weight, then reducing the calories until you lose is guaranteed to work. You don't need to be able to calculate the example amounts of energy.
People who count calories have worse results. People who eat unlimited calories have better results.
Belief in calories isn't helpful. It's worse than not helpful. If you believe calories you harm yourself. It's a brain poison.
see
>If you believe calories you harm yourself
straw man
>Another straw man
Are you moronic? He's posting study results that clearly indicate that the better tool is macro counting, and limiting carbs by extension. You clearly don't know what a straw man even is.
Studies are bullshit. It’s literally thermodynamics. Only reason CICO wouldn’t work is issues with compliance. Obese people lack the discipline necessary to measure every calorie.
>Thermodynamics
Correct, it is thermodynamics, but biochemistry involves multiple paths in which the energy that enters can interact with and exit the system it enters.
>Only reason CICO wouldn't work is because of compliance.
I think everyone agrees CICO works, but carb restriction on a calorie unrestricted diet works as well, which begs the questions of whether one method is more effective than the other, and whether CICO is a complete and meaningful model (it isn't, and we've known this since the 60's at least)
CICO is absolutely a meaningful model. If it weren’t meaningful, the vast majority of those who diet competitively for a living (bold builders and models) wouldn’t use it as a basis for their diets.
Counting macros is easier, so compliance rates are higher. Macros are just a proxy for calories. Sure, CICO isn’t a complete model of energy consumption, but neither is counting macros.
https://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
guy still lost weight using cico on a high carb and high fat diet using only foods from convenience stores. overall health still improved
>limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.
>His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.
check mate ketards
CICOhads can't stop winning
and another one
https://www.health.com/mcdonalds-only-diet-tiktok-7254935
>Three meals are permitted each day, and each meal portion is cut in half, so only 50% of each menu item is consumed. (Desserts are permitted, as well.)
>No snacks are allowed between meals, and Maginnis has elected water as his beverage of choice.
has lost 21 pounds eating only McDonalds
moral of the story is portion control
This actually proves CICO is a hoax paid for by the sugar industry and promoted through mainstream media.
Mark Haub was paid by Coca-Cola to claim he lost weight.
the argument doesn't fit my narrative
>must be big corporate and media shills
what's next anon?
what are the voices telling you now?
>overall health improved
This part was unironically debunked when his methods and especially funding were examined in detail. He did of course lose weight.
Remind me, anon.
If you have a surplus of bioavailable energy, and your body gains more then you expend, then where does the energy go?
You're just kicking the can down the road. It all comes back to if you gain more than you lose, which is the essence of what CICO is.
I'm not going to say you're incorrect wrt bioavailability of calories, as I believe that to be true. The problem is that normalgays see "eat fewer carbs", and think it means "Eat as much as you have, as long as it doesnt have many carbs", which doesnt strike at the simple truth that they just need to eat less in general.
Unlike the other morons in this thread, I think that the answer is both, but telling a normie to both eat less and be mindful of what you eat at the same time makes the starting much harder than it needs to be.
You can't go fro 0 to 100 overnight. Starting with less at least gets people seeing results.
I'll meet you halfway and agree that it's difficult to teach idiots with simple, axiomatic dogma.
so increase your TDEE you stupid fricking moron
Use a calorie counting app that will show the actual amount of calories in things, as well as a breakdown that goes beyond your macros. My lunch today was a full plate of steamed veggies and 2 hard boiled eggs, barely reached the 450cal mark and I'm feeling full as frick. Plan your meals smartly, veggies add almost no calories, have fiber and other good stuff, and will fill you up.
Also drink a ton of water, water fills your stomach and tricks your moronic brain so you don't feel hungry anymore.
>Assuming CICO works.
It always does, fatties are just delusional and/or lying.
>Conclusions: The failure of some obese subjects to lose weight while eating a diet they report as low in calories is due to an energy intake substantially higher than reported and an overestimation of physical activity, not to an abnormality in thermogenesis.
>Assuming CICO works.
It does. Literally eat less than you burn naturally. That's all it takes. You WILL lose weight doing it.
If you burn 1500 calories a day, naturally, and you literally ingest 1000 calories of carbs only, you are in a -500 calorie deficit and you WILL lose weight.
Optimize by lowering Fats and Carbs while increasing Protein. Protein keeps you fuller for longer and is only 4 calories per gram.
Biggest saboteur to CICO is that people often under-estimate how many calories they're taking in. Try rounding up and over-estimating.
So you need 1000 a day for a -500 deficit. You consume something that says 190 calories, but the makeup of that specific item is more like 195-200 (Always a small margin of error) so try writing that down as 200. A small bump-up that can help you maintain the goal -500 calories deficit while keeping that caloric margin-of-error into account.
On top of that, if you don't, try drinking coffee. It's a decent hunger suppressant.
And when you DO eat, don't make it enjoyable. It sucks, but if you restrict yourself to eating only bland food (Like unseasoned chicken breast) your appetite for more will diminish because you don't really enjoy the food you're eating. If the few foods you do eat you LOVE, you'll just feed into the appetite and introduce more risk.
Lastly, early morning cardio. Best way to maintain a deficit is to additionally burn more calories than you normally do via exercise.
>body burns 1500 cals a day
>decrease intake from 1500 to 1000
>body now only burns 1000 cals a day, making you feel like shit and tired
this actually happens for a substantial amount of people. of course this has a limit, e.g. if you fast you will either lose fat (or die). but the inter individual variability in response to caloric deficits is larger than cicotards realize.
>inter individual variability in response to caloric deficits is larger
doesn't matter. No one thinks that if you calculate your BMR and sub 500 you will lose exactly 1lbs a week or something. Counting calories involves monitoring your weight and adjusting so that you lose weight at a healthy pace. The exactly numbers don't matter.
Its like when you're driving a car too fast and you want to break, you don't give a frick how much 50% of the break will slow you down or something. Its a feedback system between how much reaction there is and your foot pressing more or less. That's why people can easily drive multiple cars without knowing the exact response curve of the pedals.
You missed the point, which is that some people need larger deficits and they feel much worse and lose much more muscle than others. If you'd feel like absolute shit on a 500 cal deficit (and any smaller deficit your body would just adjust, not losing any weight), then you'd probably not be able to stick to it for long.
And? You need a deficit to lose weight. It doesn't matter if you stick to a diet that doesn't create a deficit, because it won't work to lose weight. Yeah, deficits are hard and make you feel tired, its just how it is.
Are you stupid? If something makes it feel very hard for someone to do it and pretty easy for others, you don't see the relevance in that?
Also the way a diet creates a deficit matters a lot. If you give someone a diet that makes them feel like shit, their metabolism comes to a crawl, and they need to severely restrict calories to even lose weight, they won't be able to stick with it. But if you give them a diet that makes them feel great, increases their metabolism, they could lose weight at a much higher caloric intake (because their expenditure would also be higher), then there's a much higher chance they'd stick with it.
Deficit is hard, full stop. If I want to climb a mountain, its fricking hard, so what if I just walk half ass a half mile up the base, I don't get to the top. It doesn't matter if you make it easy moron, to achieve something you actually have to do it.
Wrong. It's very easy for some people to lose weight (they're also usually the ones complaining how they can never get any bigger). And for others it's very easy to gain weight (and harder to lose).
No shit, genius. Wow, so insightful. People who are naturally skinny find it hard to gain weight, and people who are naturally fat find it hard to lose weight? Really? Holy shit dude you should publish that.
If you are trying to lose weight you are already fat moron. You aren't the skinny guy.
People used to think it was purely a matter of gluttony and willpower, when in fact hormonal and metabolic response matter far more. Many cicotards think that when you track your maintenance calories and then subtract 500 people will lose the same amount of weight, keep their metabolism at maintenance, and feel the same. Which is not true at all. And is also why cico fails in practice for pretty much anyone except gymcels who never got fat to begin with.
>Many cicotards think that when you track your maintenance calories and then subtract 500 people will lose the same amount of weight
No one believe that. Counting calories is a tool that goes along with monitoring your weight and adjusting your diet until you are losing at a healthy rate. Metabolic differences do not matter, they are factored into the process. No one thinks you can just use an online calculator and subtract 500.
>No one thinks you can just use an online calculator and subtract 500.
I should add tho that its a good starting point for like 99% of people.
>No one believe that. Counting calories is a tool that goes along with monitoring your weight and adjusting your diet until you are losing at a healthy rate. Metabolic differences do not matter, they are factored into the process. No one thinks you can just use an online calculator and subtract 500.
This. Christ, it's like people are trying to misunderstand what CICO means.
You calculate your estimated TDEE and set your initial calorie intake based on that but if your weight doesn't move in the direction you want then just change your calorie intake until it does.
Almost all cico people believe that.
Metabolic differences matter greatly for how you feel and thus your chances of sticking with it.
I never said using an online calculator. I specifically said tracking maintenance calories. Tracking = measuring caloric intake + weight.
Either stop being dishonest or read more carefully so you can stop misrepresenting everything.
>Almost all cico people believe that.
You are the one being dishonest here. No one would say that someone would lose the exact same amount of weight. That's an idiotic straw man.
>Metabolic differences matter greatly for how you feel and thus your chances of sticking with it.
Irrelevant, it doesn't matter if you would better stick to a diet that doesn't have a deficit, you wouldn't lose weight. Its pointless. And not everyone enjoys the same type of food, so some people are more likely to tolerate being full, others don't care about being full and like to eat food they like. That is just personal preference and it works with CICO either way, so you are more likely to stick with a diet that is personalized but adheres to CICO principals so it still works to lose weight. Its pointless to act like anything else matters but CICO when it comes to losing weight.
I never said exact same amount of weight. But yes, go ask cico people: two men (same height, weight, muscle mass) who have tracked their maintenance calories to both be 2500 and then eat at 2000, would they lose about the same amount of fat per week on average?
>how someone feels is irrelevant
sure thing...
>I never said exact same amount of weight
was this you:
>Many cicotards think that when you track your maintenance calories and then subtract 500 people will lose the same amount of weight, keep their metabolism at maintenance, and feel the same.
And you are saying it again
>go ask cico people: two men (same height, weight, muscle mass) who have tracked their maintenance calories to both be 2500 and then eat at 2000, would they lose about the same amount of fat per week on average?
No, they wouldn't necessarily. Not just because of differences in metabolism, but the way people count caries can be either over or underestimated. Again, it doesn't matter as long as they are consistent with the methods because it should be adjusted based on rate of gain/loss.
>how someone feels is irrelevant
It is if it means you aren't achieving a deficit. The fact is you generally need a deficit to lose weight.
Most cico people would definitely say they would lose about the same amount of weight on average (assuming they're not miscounting or whatever).
In a general sense, yes, *on average* they would, but not necessarily always as I said.
If you take average to mean averaging out daily fluctuations (which is what I meant), then you're wrong as guy A could have his metabolism/expenditure decrease to 2000 so he doesn't lose any weight/fat while guy B's metabolism stays at 2500 so he loses weight/fat as expected.
>unseasoned chicken breast
That's pretty good food anon.
>refutes CICO in your path
Sorry, calorietards.
The more time goes on in both of the CICO threads, the more I'm thinking that carbtard anon is really just a lard that doesnt have the willpower to stop stuffing his gullet, and copes by posting pop-sci graphs.
Okay.
I look more like the guy on the left just eating junk food(a ton of carbs)and not even counting shit.
>CICO
>take one of 10000000 fitness body building youtubers that have 10 times your mass at half your bf%
>cico
>have to inject hormones
This doesn't prove what you think it does.
>everyone lean that isn't a ketoschizo is on roids
perpetual fatso engines when?
Honestly I'm with the normies on this one. A varied, healthy diet is the key
>So in total 220 g of food in a day to lose weight.
You mistake is in thinking that all food is pure cal. If you're eating 120g of straight glucose and 30g of butter, then yeah, you won't feel full.
Try eating some vegetables. 1000 calories of lettuce is more than 6.6kg of the stuff. For carrots it's about 2.5kg.
Obviously I'm not saying that should make up your entire diet but if you eat a balanced diet with plenty of vegetables and fibre-containing foods then you can absolutely feel full on 1000 calories/day.
>What can I do to optimize it?
don't eat! like, at all!
CICO is real and true, but I don't think it's as black and white as we think. I read a couple studies where they had people eat almonds with their meal, and because of the intact cell walls of the almonds, the body wasn't able to fully able to break everything down and resulted in a lower calorie count for the entire meal. That being said, which foods cause that effect would be so limited, and it's such an incredibly understudied and unknown concept, that it would be stupid to lower the calorie count for the almonds and the meal.
Man I was hoping this would devolve into a coomer thread but everyone managed to stay on topic
What the frick
How much do you eat back your calories? Everybody says not to, but if you do an intense something, then that's not happening. 10%? 50%?
I dont bother I go by feel. I went on a 2 hour bike ride at 150W average today supposedly burning over 1000 active calories and I drank a liter of powerade (250calories) when I got home because it was 25C and I was sweating like a pig but didnt eat back anything else cause I just didnt feel like it
Meanwhile earlier this week I did some running hill repeats and supposedly only burned 300 active calories and ate an extra 250 calories because it made me hungry as frick and hill repeats are hard work.
and then you add a kilo of veggies that barely have any calories and no tomatoes aren't vegetables
>This by no way is enough to make someone feel full.
Take ozempic and switch off your appetite.
>This by no way is enough to make someone feel full.
You're not supposed to feel full when you're trying to lose weight. It should be enough food to feel satisfied though. If that isn't enough for you, consider that maybe a higher weight is okay for you.
Also, if your maintenance is 1500 you're either sub 5' and completely sedentary or your goal is just very lean. In which case, work out more and forget about feeling full even then.
Source
a 500kcal deficit daily is excessive, 200kcal would put you on track to lose about .5lbs a week which is optimal to not sacrifice muscle mass or health, don't starve yourself moron.
is this a sign of mental illness
Yes, Moxyte is a notorious pest/ spammer on this board and has been sitting up any thread pertaining to CICO/ fat loss for nearly 3 years now. If you see his posts, don't engage with him, just ask him to post his updated body with timestamp (he won't because he's now a lardass).
>So in total 220 g of food in a day to lose weight.
>This by no way is enough to make someone feel full
yacon syrup + snake juice + whey protein + nonfat plain greek yogurt
worked for me
Seed oils and grains were always the problem.
nobody on IST can ever prove that by simply lowering caloric intake that your body will begin to lose fat, as opposite to losing muscle
when i see this proof i'll believe CICO
no, metaphors and logical simplifications are not proof
please have a nice day in the head you israelite demorilzer homosexual.
>please have a nice day in the head you israelite demorilzer homosexual.
not an argument
This is a Black person-tier argument for morons.
So, prove that you can lose fat eating more than your TDEE and show us, you giant fat homosexual.
You are correct as can be seen by the seething replies.
> working out
> as if that is a bad thing
See I would maybe be more inclined to try keto if y’all weren’t a bunch of losers pretending that it’s some silver bullet that is going to fix all your problems without even having to lift a finger
> your body will begin to lose fat, as opposite to losing muscle
When you are morbidly obese you should be losing weight, period. You can eat snicker bars at a deficit for six years and become a skinny fat. Still better than weighing 550lbs
how can i avoid becoming a skinny fat with CICO?
I always assumed your body burned fat before protein when nothing else was available, because it has higher energy content and is easier to break down. That's why all those mammals in the arctic are so damn fat, cause it's full of energy and insulates well. And that's why people eat blubber, full of cals and energy
>Assumes that calories are metabolically fungible and bioavailable
Sorry bud, 50kcal of butter is going be metabolized differently than 50kcals of vegetable oil
Maybe, just maybe, when you're eating to LOSE FAT, you won't be full at every meal.
Figure this out, or, be fat forever.
Get your body operational first. All the hormones normalized, immune system balanced etc.
Then cico will work as it should.
Your body can consume all the good stuff you consume, but if it's all fricked by hormones etc it can't process it properly, greatly reducing your gains/loss.
>As a woman
stopped reading. frick off c**toid
>lose 45 lbs over ~ 6 months
>track every calorie I eat, don't really give a shit about macros, eat everything from salad to pizzas
>do a linear regression, weight (lbs) ~ week
>average calorie deficit: ~500
>weight lost per week coefficient: 1.8 lbs / week
Why does it just work bros
I’ve lost roughly the same weight over the same period. My in laws think it’s hilarious that I’ve “lost 50 pounds eating McDonald’s.”
I eat two McDoubles and half of a medium fry almost everyday. With a coupon, it comes out to $3.83 for 1000 calories. The only other thing I eat is a tub of cottage chees3, a tub of light Greek yogurt, and a protein shake. 2500 calories a day and 230g of protein for $10 a day.
I’m almost down to my goal weight and then I’ll start to do a recomp.
Why don't you just work out?
I don't care what fat people think or believe
what is "metabolism". is it just an increased tdee no matter if I do something or not?
It's a word fats use to justify not trying, you can always find your tdee and just eat less than that regardless of how "fast your metabolism" is.
I mean I lift 6x per week and do cardio 4x per week, my tdee is obviously higher than usual but lets compare off days whenever I dont do shit. Shouldnt be me tdee on these days pretty much be the same no matter if I trained or not or does my body burn more calories just chilling. I am not talking about increased muscle mass burning more or the afterburn effect from lifting.
You have one job and it's literally to not be fat you fricking b***h.
funny thing is theres some homosexual weirdo who likes that shit