it's equivalent to saying >money in, money out is the only way to get rich.
While not technically wrong, it's not stating anything of value. People who calorie count junk food tend to fail their diets. You want food that will satiate your body and not cause illness or side effects, like obesity.
I can completely disregard any opinions from someone who says CICO, since they are admitting it just works (or more often fails to work) and they have no idea about the intricacies.
Good analogy but imagine if there was a group of people who thought that money-fairies were stealing from their bank accounts and that's why they were poor. CICO is about stopping people falling for a bunch of gibberish to explain why they are overweight. You get across CICO first then when they accept that you can move from there on to different methods. I will agree with you that some people just say CICO as if that is some silver bullet diet for weight loss when it isn't even a diet, just physics.
in, money out is the only way to get rich.
Yes?
Do you know what "buy low, sell high" means? Do you even know anything about investment?
People agreeing with this analogy never invested in their lives.
>money in, money out is the only way to get rich.
The most popular financial literacy book Rich Dad Poor Dad is built on this premise and it's correct.
Is there really an illness that completely prevents your body from using it's fat storage? If such a person went into a deficit he'd simply die without losing weigth?
I've seen some pics of lipedemas that don't go away even when the person had gotten otherwise exgremely thin, but they're rare, weird, and extremely fricking obvious.
in calories out is the ONLY way to lose weight >How true is this statement?
That twinkie professor is the only case where it allegedly worked. With n=1, the case of CICO is not very strong, considering all other studies show CICO not working at all or not working as calculated.
He'd lose water weight and muscle. Ie. he'd get fatter by body fat %.
yep, CICO was the standard advice before they even discovered leptin for example. in a healthy organism hunger/satiety naturally regulate healthy bodyweight, just as thirst and pissing naturally regulates your water levels
The problem is you downregulate your metabolism and your hunger increases significantly after you lose the weight. Weight regain ensues in 90% of people who lose 10% or more of their body weight after 5 years. And in 33 to 66% of cases they gain back more than they lost. That's the issue. Anti-CICO people who deny the efficacy of counting calories by pointing out that calorie labels aren't 100% accurate and other tedious arguments are just dishonest. CICO works but neither is it foolproof. You have to seriously undereat below your TDEE to see results at which point you suffer from the problems that come with chronic caloric restriction (i.e. starvation) such as a decrease in thermogenesis, lethargy, irritability, poor sleep/insomina. This is the problem with plain old calorie restriction.
Then what is the fix? I went from 70kg to 63kg so roughly 7kg lost in 2 months, now it feels like impossible to get past this, I feel like I have no energy, insomnia etc
As far as we know nothing. It has to do with leptin. You should be able to eat a reasonable amount and stay at a healthy body weight but fat people particularly the obese are leptin resistant. This is what chuds and grifters in the fitness sphere don't understand.
In my personal experience it's true. I lost 260lbs through CICO (430lbs -> 170lbs @ 6' 3). I've maintained my current weight at 180lbs the past year through consistant calorie counting. It works. If anyone tells you it does not, ignore them, they are fools or shills.
It's objectively correct. All diets are different ways of achieving CICO and come down to personal preference and goals. "Plain" CICO is eating whatever you already eat, just less of it. Keto is meant to keep you sated longer so you don't get hunger cravings while still consuming fewer calories than your TDEE. People who don't understand this will still do moronic stuff like drunk liquid butter, bypassing the purpose of the diet. Fasting 8/16, assuming you sleep 8 hours a day, cuts your window to eat in half for the day. While you could stuff yourself full in those 8 hours, many people don't and so they lose weight. Vegetarianism can work, as people will fill up on low calorie, high volume foods like watermelon on celery and keep the overall energy intake down while still feeling full. Of course they could also hork down 2500 calories of oil and bread plus whatever veggies they eat and end up gaining weight.
None of them are foolproof, but for a lot of people it allows them to eat relatively intuitively without having to break out the scale and check their nutrition labels. For autistic people interested in fitness (me for writing this and you for being here to read it) this is less of a concern and may even be desirable.
I'm interested in the carbohydrate-insulin model. Impacting hormones that regulate hunger and fat storage/conversion might be more impactful than raw calories in, calories out.
I get where you're coming from with this, but doesn't make sense when you see how many high carb people are still lean. Entire populations even in asian countries that eat tons of rice and remain lean. French paradox, eat tons of bread and remain lean, etc.
There are lots of fat people in france/asia and they are getting fatter, they just haven't hit american levels yet. More likely they just walk etc more. As a general rule, the more active you are the more useful carbs are.
Yes it is the only way to lose weight and anyone who tells you any different just doesn’t understand what they’re talking about.
All fad diets (keto, paleo etc) work because they all result in calorie deficits. Also consider the fact these diets place greater emphasis on protein intake than fats/carbs. The reason this is relevant is because the caloric availability of protein is around 70% (ie if you consume 10 calories of protein only 7 calories are actually used for energy or stored as fat). Therefore eating a high protein diet results in weight loss due to underestimating calorie intake from protein.
Another important aspect of weight loss is ensuring you eating unprocessed foods that satiate you and make you feel fuller for longer, effectively reducing the chance you’re going to pig out on junk food.
>implying I'm going to believe some written article made by propaganda machine >while Coca-Cola tried the same shit to try to shift blame for their sugary shite causing health problems including obesity
Unless you believe that the law of conservation of energy is a israeli lie (it might be), then 100%
it's equivalent to saying
>money in, money out is the only way to get rich.
While not technically wrong, it's not stating anything of value. People who calorie count junk food tend to fail their diets. You want food that will satiate your body and not cause illness or side effects, like obesity.
I can completely disregard any opinions from someone who says CICO, since they are admitting it just works (or more often fails to work) and they have no idea about the intricacies.
wow so you're saying the theory and the practice are not seamlessly transferrable? omg so intricate what a genius
Try eating nothing but 2 bags of chips a day for a month. You will not be healthy but will definitely lose weight.
what does ~~*healthy*~~ even mean?
Definitely not your posts
Good analogy but imagine if there was a group of people who thought that money-fairies were stealing from their bank accounts and that's why they were poor. CICO is about stopping people falling for a bunch of gibberish to explain why they are overweight. You get across CICO first then when they accept that you can move from there on to different methods. I will agree with you that some people just say CICO as if that is some silver bullet diet for weight loss when it isn't even a diet, just physics.
The fact people argue with this post makes me believe the entire board are trolls and around 1% are actually fit.
>carnivore diet is a belief that if you collect only coins you'll get wealthy because our ancestors used coins for far longer than paper money
if the coins were made of gold like it used to, yes
Fair take, but I’d argue there’s way too many people who don’t understand the fundamental concept. Both for CICO and money-in-money-out.
in, money out is the only way to get rich.
Yes?
Do you know what "buy low, sell high" means? Do you even know anything about investment?
People agreeing with this analogy never invested in their lives.
That's the whole point, you moron. Jesus christ the reading comprehension on here is atrocious.
>money in, money out is the only way to get rich.
The most popular financial literacy book Rich Dad Poor Dad is built on this premise and it's correct.
it's true if you're healthy, which most people aren't
Is there really an illness that completely prevents your body from using it's fat storage? If such a person went into a deficit he'd simply die without losing weigth?
I've seen some pics of lipedemas that don't go away even when the person had gotten otherwise exgremely thin, but they're rare, weird, and extremely fricking obvious.
yeah 'beetus, a hypoglycemic coma
in calories out is the ONLY way to lose weight
>How true is this statement?
That twinkie professor is the only case where it allegedly worked. With n=1, the case of CICO is not very strong, considering all other studies show CICO not working at all or not working as calculated.
He'd lose water weight and muscle. Ie. he'd get fatter by body fat %.
yep, CICO was the standard advice before they even discovered leptin for example. in a healthy organism hunger/satiety naturally regulate healthy bodyweight, just as thirst and pissing naturally regulates your water levels
something is broken
If your goal is to lose weight you can skip the calories in part
The problem is you downregulate your metabolism and your hunger increases significantly after you lose the weight. Weight regain ensues in 90% of people who lose 10% or more of their body weight after 5 years. And in 33 to 66% of cases they gain back more than they lost. That's the issue. Anti-CICO people who deny the efficacy of counting calories by pointing out that calorie labels aren't 100% accurate and other tedious arguments are just dishonest. CICO works but neither is it foolproof. You have to seriously undereat below your TDEE to see results at which point you suffer from the problems that come with chronic caloric restriction (i.e. starvation) such as a decrease in thermogenesis, lethargy, irritability, poor sleep/insomina. This is the problem with plain old calorie restriction.
Then what is the fix? I went from 70kg to 63kg so roughly 7kg lost in 2 months, now it feels like impossible to get past this, I feel like I have no energy, insomnia etc
As far as we know nothing. It has to do with leptin. You should be able to eat a reasonable amount and stay at a healthy body weight but fat people particularly the obese are leptin resistant. This is what chuds and grifters in the fitness sphere don't understand.
What if I just roid
63kg? How tall are you? Are you a girl? What is your bmi at 63kg
>Are you a girl?
You have to be 18 to post here
5'6 or 167cm, BMI is 22.6 TDEE is 1800 for maintenance
In my personal experience it's true. I lost 260lbs through CICO (430lbs -> 170lbs @ 6' 3). I've maintained my current weight at 180lbs the past year through consistant calorie counting. It works. If anyone tells you it does not, ignore them, they are fools or shills.
>Ime it's true
>So everyone who has different a xp is a liar
You're American, aren't you?
How exactly did you do it and how much did you exercise? Also how long did it take and how old are you? Good job.
>drink water
>gain weight
>pee
>lose weight
>omg cico destroyed forever
moron
I am aware that this is a troll thread.
It's objectively correct. All diets are different ways of achieving CICO and come down to personal preference and goals. "Plain" CICO is eating whatever you already eat, just less of it. Keto is meant to keep you sated longer so you don't get hunger cravings while still consuming fewer calories than your TDEE. People who don't understand this will still do moronic stuff like drunk liquid butter, bypassing the purpose of the diet. Fasting 8/16, assuming you sleep 8 hours a day, cuts your window to eat in half for the day. While you could stuff yourself full in those 8 hours, many people don't and so they lose weight. Vegetarianism can work, as people will fill up on low calorie, high volume foods like watermelon on celery and keep the overall energy intake down while still feeling full. Of course they could also hork down 2500 calories of oil and bread plus whatever veggies they eat and end up gaining weight.
None of them are foolproof, but for a lot of people it allows them to eat relatively intuitively without having to break out the scale and check their nutrition labels. For autistic people interested in fitness (me for writing this and you for being here to read it) this is less of a concern and may even be desirable.
I'm interested in the carbohydrate-insulin model. Impacting hormones that regulate hunger and fat storage/conversion might be more impactful than raw calories in, calories out.
I get where you're coming from with this, but doesn't make sense when you see how many high carb people are still lean. Entire populations even in asian countries that eat tons of rice and remain lean. French paradox, eat tons of bread and remain lean, etc.
There are lots of fat people in france/asia and they are getting fatter, they just haven't hit american levels yet. More likely they just walk etc more. As a general rule, the more active you are the more useful carbs are.
This dude lost weight by constantly eating below satiety and dropping a large amount of muscle mass.
The goal isn't to lose weight, presumably, it is to lose fat.
You can do anything that puts you in a deficit for 10 weeks and lose weight. The problem is how to stay healthy and lean for decades....
Yes it is the only way to lose weight and anyone who tells you any different just doesn’t understand what they’re talking about.
All fad diets (keto, paleo etc) work because they all result in calorie deficits. Also consider the fact these diets place greater emphasis on protein intake than fats/carbs. The reason this is relevant is because the caloric availability of protein is around 70% (ie if you consume 10 calories of protein only 7 calories are actually used for energy or stored as fat). Therefore eating a high protein diet results in weight loss due to underestimating calorie intake from protein.
Another important aspect of weight loss is ensuring you eating unprocessed foods that satiate you and make you feel fuller for longer, effectively reducing the chance you’re going to pig out on junk food.
>implying I'm going to believe some written article made by propaganda machine
>while Coca-Cola tried the same shit to try to shift blame for their sugary shite causing health problems including obesity