>cico

>cico

  1. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >nobody knows anything

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      David Ludwig has it pretty well figured out.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The recipes and meal plan include luscious high-fat foods (like nuts and nut butters, full-fat dairy, avocados, and dark chocolate), savory proteins, and natural carbohydrates.
        Sounds like standard American diet food pyramid bullshit to me.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      nobody knows anything

  2. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >inject 5ccs insulin
    >gain 10lbs from the air around me
    I assume any "weight gain" had absolutely nothing to do with the amount of water these people drink, and certainly nothing to do with whatever food they ate

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >CICOfags always forgetting that BMR is easily most of your calories out and that that’s what hormones fuck with it
      you burn less calories because insulin is your energy storage hormone, dipshit. your body can’t access stored fat while your insulin is high, signaling you to eat more, and lowering your BMR if you don’t eat more. ever feel really cold after exercise? that’s what’s happening there.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >TDEE is based on many metrics such as genetics, hormones, and normal activity
        >fail to take hormones into consideration because reasons
        >question yourself when gaining weight on same exact diet as pre-hormone treatment
        I'm joggin my noggin here

        • 4 months ago
          thread hider

          Most people don't have health problems related to hormones causing fat gain.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        So the only difference is your TDEE is different than if someone was the same weight and height as you are? Just find the "real" TDEE and stick to it? You still don't magically gain weight by breathing air

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          You, anon, are fucking retarded.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Both sides of the CICO argument fail to understand the entirety of CICO and how different people can be different even though the laws of thermodynamics remain the same. Nothing is a constant from person to person, and that's why each individual must track their intake, with as few variables as possible, for a period of time and compare it against any weight changes and then make adjustments for themselves.

  3. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    why not inject this into gyno to become your own gf?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >become your own gf
      lol this must be the worst attempt that the trannies were using to make retards/autist to turn.
      l

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      because fat-only breasts are saggy

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        god I hate women with shitty saggy tits. Why are they such fucking failures that they can't even have proper tits.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          poor diet and neglect of upper body exercise

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            diet for more glandular tissue in womens breasts?

            • 4 months ago
              Anonymous

              Just play with them a lot.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      You’d give yourself dysphoria

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >aliens learn the secrets of chain link
      >come back and give us a new utopia based upon chain link
      >all life now based around chain link
      >$LINK: -8%

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    So I guess that means you should limit carbohydrates to reduce your insulin response, right?!

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      It depends on your goals. If you are a sumo wrestler you may want to eat plenty of rice and noodles to pack on body fat.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        No one here is a sumo wrestler.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          You never know who's behind shitposts nowadays

      • 4 months ago
        Isley

        I'd eat chanko with the boys ngl.

        Honestly, sumo wrestlers prove that CICO is true because what they eat is really healthy. They just pair it with a LOT of rice and LOT of stew.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        You just know

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, you will never get to the point like in pic. You cant get that much insulin eating "healthy" diet (read non American shit diet, you can eat rice or any other healthy carbs)

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      It means dont inject fucking insulin into your fat. OP's pic has nothing to do with food.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        It has something to do with food. See:

        https://i.imgur.com/PgVnvvj.png

        In your imagination, weight is controlled by calories. In reality weight is controlled by hormones.

        >While all mice receiving the high-carbohydrate C diets ingested very similar amounts of food and lost similar quantities of energy through faeces, they displayed quite different body-weight gains.
        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22863169/

        Same calories. Same macronutrients. Different body composition. How? (HINT: hormones).

  5. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    To be fair, the science just indicates that insulin injections focus the fat growth to a specific area, not that simply injecting it causes the growth directly.
    An interesting hypothesis however: injecting your wife's ass with insulin to make it more fat

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

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

      >cico

      but bodybuilders inject insulin and get lean....

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Bodybuilders inject insulin because they eat so much fucking food.

  6. 4 months ago
    thread hider

    >Insulin induced lipo hypotrophy
    Wow, okay what's the opposite of this? How can I inject something that spot reduces fat.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >what's the opposite of this?
      Type 1 diabetes.

      • 4 months ago
        thread hider

        No that's wrong the reason for injecting insulin would be targeted fat gain. There must be some chemical that target spot reduces fat. So far I've found:

        - phosphatidylcholine
        - deoxycholic acid

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Boiling sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide injected into the fat will remove it very quickly.

          • 4 months ago
            thread hider

            Serious responses only. Youve been down voted sir.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >same ass but tighter shorts
          MAGIC

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      There’s an acid that does this. I went as far as buying some, but then I did more research and TL;DR it’s really hard on your liver (or kidneys I forget) and will give you cancer.

  7. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >CICO is all that matters
    >but also make sure you have the right macros
    >and also don’t eat sugar
    >and also don’t drink
    >and make sure you eat fiber
    >t. every CICO moron
    Protein isn’t used by the body for energy unless absolutely necessary because protein is used for repairing and building your body. Protein can’t both be used to build your body and be metabolized for energy, that’s like building a house out of ash. If anyone tells you about the amount of calories in protein they are ignorant about how the human body works and anything they say on nutrition can be ignored.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Cico is all that matters for weight loss/gain.
      >lists a bunch of healthy eating advice.
      >thinks there is a negative correlation.
      >rants about protein.
      Peak mental illness

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Protein isn’t used by the body for energy unless absolutely necessary because protein is used for repairing and building your body.
      Actually a good amount, roughly half, of all dietary protein gets converted to glucose and BCAAs are more likely to be used as energy.

  8. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    cope

  9. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why the weird strawman? CICO is the only thing that matters in terms of losing or gaining weight. Your overall health can fluctuate heavily despite your weight being 'healthy' if the diet that you eat is not meeting your nutritional needs.
    No one in the world has ever disputed this. The dispute comes from delusional fatties thinking that they can do zero work, eat over their daily calorie allowance, and still lose weight, probably because they are fat, and their brains are filled with mayo.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      CICO has been thoroughly disproven by real world attempts.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        What's Erinn Egbert's secret?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          She changed the type of food she ate.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        No it has not, that is a graph showing that fatties do not maintain their lower calorie eating habits; and as such got fat again. It is also based off of reality TV. The second graph is them getting their basal calorie needs wrong. This is just an example of people not building good habits, it has nothing to do with calories being what controls weight.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          This dude can't even read simple charts but he thinks he understands why a biological organism gains or loses body fat.

          Typical calorietard.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Enlighten me then. What magical fad diet do you think controls weight, and what specifically, do you think those two charts show?

            • 4 months ago
              Anonymous

              You're literally a mental retard. Attempts to communicate with you will be unsuccesful.

              I wish I was an NPC whisperer, but I'm not. Sorry.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                So to clarify: You have nothing to offer, no advice, and no real information? You're either a whale, or that weird ketobot.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                I have plenty to offer any intelligent human.

                Trying to explain to you how to read simple charts would be like trying to teach a dog long division.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >JAMA. 2006;295(1):39-49
                >The trial, therefore, provided a unique opportunity to examine the long-term effects of an ad libitum reduced-fat dietary pattern
                >ad libitum

                Confirmed you never read the text, just blindly posting the graphs with no context.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Fatties on a fat loss show regained their weight, therefore CICO doesn't work
        They regained their weight because they did not deal with their bad habits properly and went right back to eating more food than they should.
        The problem here is not CICO; it is their behaviour.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        I lost 30lbs in 5 months doing it.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        post body

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous
      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Very cool, but have you considered the following
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          CICO is irrefutable.

          It's a waste of time to debate it's veracity. There is no question. If people refuse to acknowledge this fact they are not worth interacting with.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >stop eating like shit
        >lose weight
        >relapse
        >gain weight
        >somehow this disproves basic physics

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        I had a fat psychology professor show me this from the biggest loser. He said our bodies have set weights and will fight to go back to that weight. This was maybe 7 years ago.

        I was 5’ 10” and just over 300 lbs and thought i would never be able to change. I wanted to get a gf so I tried anyway. I went down to 190 lbs in about 2 years and kept it off. And got a gf in the first year. Now we’re married.

        How did I do it? I tracked my calories in my fitness pal. I had no idea how many calories I was supposed to eat and I didn’t have a clue what I was eating. IMO if you figure out your TDEE and subtract from it, you will make progress. Maybe you can optimize it but you will get there. Anything else is fatty propaganda.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          I feel like fat people are a mixture of people like you where there’s just zero knowledge, and people that do know what they’re doing but something genetic just will not allow it long-term and they yo-yo a lot fighting against reality.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          You did go back and call your professor a fat gay, right?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >CICO has been thoroughly disproven by real world attempts.

        >I'm above the laws of thermodynamics!

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You can adjust the energy coming in
      >But you don't adjust the energy going out

      Even wonder why you feel like shit on a diet? Your body reduces you energy burn to match your energy intake. CICO doesn't take that into account

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        I don't feel like shit on a diet though. I just feel hungry. I still go for runs and go the gym, I am just losing weight while doing so.
        Also: No, your body does not 'lower the amount of energy you burn'. A step takes X amount of energy, a heartbeat takes X amount of energy, your brain requires X amount of energy. If your body stopped them you'd be fucking dead lol.
        And even if it did, then you have failed to account for your calories. The calories are still the crux of the issue as they are the easiest method to functionally assess how much energy your body is having put into it.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Of course it does. Your body senses that you are not taking in as much food as normal, so it thinks "oh shit, we might be running low on supplies! Better store what I have and not expend as much energy."
        It's no different to getting a pay cut and you cutting your spending back to reduce your cash outflow.
        Your body regulating energy expenditure based on your intake is basic homeostasis; it is not proof that CICO isn't true.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >CICO doesn't take that into account
        Yes it does. If my body burns 2500 calories a day and I normally eat 2500 calories a day, I'll maintain my weight. If I switch to 2000 calories a day, my body will normalize down to 2000 calories burned a day, and I'll lose a little weight before maintaining again. At that point, I can then drop down to 1500 calories a day, and lose some weight before my body compensates again. Eventually you hit a hard floor of 800-1200 calories that your body will always have to burn just to keep the lights on, and at that point any cuts below then will be guaranteed weight loss.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >CICO doesn't take CO into account

  10. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why the fuck is there an insulin injection thread on IST?
    Do you tards have beetus?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      AHAHAHAHA

  11. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If you want to lose weight you should eat less
    >uuh but what if I repeatedly inject my entire body with copious amounts of synthetic hormones? Explain that cicofags

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >"If you want to lose weight you should stop eating fattening foods like sugar"
      >UH EXCUSE ME ARE YOU DENYING THE HECKING LAWS OF PHYSICS?!? SUGAR IS NOT FATTENING IT'S JUST CALORIES!

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        If you eat 1000 calories worth of sugar a day, for six months. You will lose weight.
        If you eat 10'000 calories a day worth of mixed vegetables, fruit, grains and proteins you will gain weight. If you think otherwise, then you do not understand how your body stores and uses energy.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          low carb results in more weight loss at the same calories. yes you can starve yourself eating sugar to lose weight but thats extreme and will make you sick

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, so you agree that the primary control mechanism of weight is that your body stores excess energy as fat; and that the most effective functional model of that energy is the calorie? And therefore the basis of any weight reduction is through calorie control?

            • 4 months ago
              Anonymous

              How many calories are in dietary fiber?

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >How many calories are in dietary fiber
                Google tells me ~2 calories a gram. Why is this relevant to the question of 'Do you agree that the body stores excess energy as fat, and that the best functional measurement of excess energy is the calorie?'?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            that's mainly due to losing glycogen and glycogen related water retention in muscles tho. so not exactly something you should want.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >low carb results in more weight loss at the same calories.
            I lost 40lbs in 5 months eating mostly carbs, eating keto would be miserable, I'm not hungry either you're just eating the wrong shit.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          In your imagination, weight is controlled by calories. In reality weight is controlled by hormones.

          >While all mice receiving the high-carbohydrate C diets ingested very similar amounts of food and lost similar quantities of energy through faeces, they displayed quite different body-weight gains.
          https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22863169/

          • 4 months ago
            thread hider

            But the vast majority of people have normal hormone levels.

            • 4 months ago
              Anonymous

              The vast majority of people (86%) have metabolic dysfunction lol what planet do you live on? The average person is overweight and has a beer belly and eats the majority of their calories from seed oils and grains.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                So literally CICO causes 'muh metabolism' then?

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yep. See:

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

                CICO has been thoroughly disproven by real world attempts.

                When people try to lose weight with CICO approach it not only fails, it permanently fucks up their metabolism.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                So shouldn't Christian Bale be a fat fuck by now

            • 4 months ago
              Anonymous

              >But the vast majority of people have normal hormone levels.
              Sure, bud.

              https://www.unc.edu/posts/2018/11/28/only-12-percent-of-american-adults-are-metabolically-healthy-carolina-study-finds/

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                Is there a map of the states showing average natural breast sizes?
                Someone must have conducted a study by now.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                thank you for asking the important questions anon

              • 4 months ago
                thread hider

                Nothing to do with people within hormonal reference ranges. Further they got to bad "metabolic health" by eating too much.

                Metabolic health, which is defined as having optimal levels of five factors: blood glucose, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, blood pressure and waist circumference, without the need for medications. Read also FAT.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >they got to bad "metabolic health" by eating too much.
                No. See:

                https://i.imgur.com/PgVnvvj.png

                In your imagination, weight is controlled by calories. In reality weight is controlled by hormones.

                >While all mice receiving the high-carbohydrate C diets ingested very similar amounts of food and lost similar quantities of energy through faeces, they displayed quite different body-weight gains.
                https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22863169/

                Their metabolic health was damaged by powdered carbohydrate (i.e. sugar, flour).

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                even by IST standards this is dumb, your link doens't mention hormones once..

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >people who exercise more appear to have higher levels of metabolic health.

            • 4 months ago
              Anonymous

              10% of the US has diabetes lol

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                its closer to 50% if include pre diabetes. maybe even higher if it was tested for properly

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I have plenty to offer any intelligent human.

            Trying to explain to you how to read simple charts would be like trying to teach a dog long division.

            Okay, I'll bite. Shill me your diet. Is it keto? Is it that weird 'eat nothing but iron rich food' one I saw recently? Or is it something entirely and hilariously new that is also just 'eat less calories, but in a whacky way!'

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Did each type of mouse perform the same level of physical activity?
            I bet the mice that were being fed higher quality nutrition were able to access the energy they were consuming better and use it to be more active, changing their body composition.

            From what I can see in the thread, you are missing the point of CICO.
            Nobody with any sense of logic would deny that the quality of the food we consume impacts our weight and body composition; any champion bodybuilder, power lifter, athlete and THE FUCKING STICKY emphasise the importance of good quality nutrition.
            It is like a car: you must use the correct octane fuel and type for it to function properly.
            But it also requires the RIGHT AMOUNT. An empty tank means you're going nowhere. Too much fuel and you flood the engine when starting, or run too rich and run poorly.

            As

            Why the weird strawman? CICO is the only thing that matters in terms of losing or gaining weight. Your overall health can fluctuate heavily despite your weight being 'healthy' if the diet that you eat is not meeting your nutritional needs.
            No one in the world has ever disputed this. The dispute comes from delusional fatties thinking that they can do zero work, eat over their daily calorie allowance, and still lose weight, probably because they are fat, and their brains are filled with mayo.

            says, CICO is mentioned as a (correct) counter to the idea that fatties can defy physics and gain weight despite eating at a caloric deficit.
            If you eat good food, but too little you will lose weight.
            If you eat too much good food you will gain weight.
            If you eat too little shit food you will lose weight and suffer phsyically.
            If you eat too much shit you will gain weight and a lot of problems.

            Good quality nutrition helps you to process food better and use it properly by keeping your hormones where they should be.
            But all those nutrients won't do shit without food or energy to process in the first place.

            • 4 months ago
              Anonymous

              >I bet the mice that were being fed higher quality nutrition
              They were eating identical food. One group was eating it solid, the other ate it crushed to powder.

              Exactly the same calories.
              Exactly the same macros.
              Exactly the same ingredients.

              If you want to understand why the same feed can have such different results just by being powdered, you need to learn about how food processing changes hormone response.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                Your response has said nothing about the level of physical activity they were performing, but let's play along with your stupidity.

                The difference can be explained by the digestive tract being optimised to process food in one form over another, leading the glucose entering the body and insulin being released at different rates.
                Eat 2 identical meals, but eat one at a slower rate, then eat the other like a hungry wolf and see how you feel.
                Digestion is a highly demanding function for the human body. It takes time for hormones to reach the correct levels.

                This is still not disproving the central point of CICO.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the central point of CICO
                What do you think is "the central point of CICO"?

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                The central point of CICO is that fatties that claim they gain/maintain their corpulence whilst consuming a caloric deficit are full of shit.
                Nutrition does influence how we process those calories, along with the method of ingestion, but you fundamentally cannot put on weight without having excess energy units to store in some form.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >whilst consuming a caloric deficit
                So the core of CICO is a tautology, but you're too dumb to recognize it. I agree.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >tautology: saying the same thing twice in a different way
                Tell me where I said the same thing twice in that snippet you took out.

                According to CICO fat retention is caused by 'calorie imbalance' (e.g. eating too much, exercising too little).

                Injecting insulin proves that fat retention is caused by hormones independent of calorie consumption.

                You keep some glucose free in your blood so it can be used on demand. This is particularly important for your brain, since it cannot metabolise anaerobically; neurons must have oxygen and glucose to work at all.
                If you inject insulin into a particular spot repeatedly, it will naturally cause sugar in the area to be stored there. It's a subcutaneous injection, after all.
                This is why type 1 diabetics like my nephew vary the injection sites.

                Have you seen what happens with type 1 diabetics that inject themselves with too much insulin and don't get enough sugar? They get shaky, light headed and risk dropping into comas.

                Your idea that the test proves that weight is dictated by hormones and not calories is missing a critical point. The excess insulin being introduced via injections is causing more energy to be stored than normal, taking away a metabolic resource that should be instantly available. This will affect the person's basal metabolic rate (as the body senses it does not have as much energy instantly available) and their ability to perform physically demanding tasks (since it cannot provide as much energy to muscles). You are changing where the energy stores are.
                Any where do you think they got these calories in the first place? From what they ate.
                And what will they not be able to do as much of? Physical activity.
                Oh look, it's calories in, calories out.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >caloric deficit

                https://i.imgur.com/peExUpC.gif

                CICO worked for me, if it doesn't work for you you must be the problem

                Post body.

                I lost 30lbs in 5 months doing it.

                >5 months
                You'll be at or above starting weight 1 year and 7 months from now.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Caloric: adjective form of calorie, a unit used for measuring energy
                >Deficit: an excess of expenditure relative to income or intake
                There is no tautology here, but considering your reasoning throughout this thread, the only bigger retard here than you is me for bothering to engage with your horseshit.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                The guy you responded to doesn't even know what a tautology is, he just keeps saying it because he thinks it makes him sound smart.

                CICO is not a tautology of TDEE.
                They can be used to reach a goal and TDEE can be a part of CO portion, but TDEE can also be measured entirely on its own.
                The guy is a retard.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                So what is a "caloric deficit"? How do you know someone is in a "caloric deficit"?

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                If you measure them against a stone counterweight and they have lost weight.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                Exactly. A tautology. Saying
                >weight loss
                >caloric deficit
                is just saying the same thing twice.

                You think a tautology is meaningful. You're a dunce.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                Bro you said CICO is false, in thread.
                No one takes anything you say seriously after that.

                Also
                >weight loss is the same as a caloric deficit
                Weight loss is a unit of measurement to determine weight.
                Caloric deficit is a measurement of calories lost or not eaten.
                That's not a tautology kid.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                kek, nice grainbrain cuck

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >oy veys intensifies
                and this is why no one takes keto seriously
                either make a legitimate argument against CICO or fuck off.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You'll be at or above starting weight 1 year and 7 months from now.
                if I started over eating, otherwise no I won't lol.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                Brainlet. Its because powdered food has a lower thermic effect than its whole food equivalent. Powdered food is rapidly absorbed because it is essentially pre-digested. The body expend less energy breaking down the macromolecules into their monomers/substrates.
                Thus, if you feed two mice isocaloric diets, one of whole food and one of powdered food, the two mice DO NOT have the same CICO. The mouse eating the whole food is burning more calories in the process of eating and digesting its food.
                It's the same as a human sitting and eating a bowl of whole fruits vs a pulverised fruit smoothie of the same fruits. Or the difference between eating 500kcal steak vs 500kcal of whey protein in a shake.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're replying to a post which contains a video which proves everything you just said wrong. Pic related. Strange.

                Here's the link again for you:

                Powdered or liquid carbs are fattening because they cause an increased hormone response. Fat and protein don't have the same problem.

                In fact the mouse study we are discussing also proves you wrong. The weight difference was observed between powdered and solid control diets, but the other diets had no difference between powdered and unpowdered.

                >CICO doesn't take CO into account

                CICO thinks CO is modulated by physical activity. The fact that CO is dependent on CI makes CICO invalid.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          No one is denying that. What they're saying is that hormones can tip the scales. You could lose more weight than the 1000 calorie on a diet of more than 1000 calories with proper hormones and macros.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        The fact a man lost weight eating only twinkies just gtfos yourargument. CICO is the most important, hormones second.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          That guy was paid by Coca-Cola to claim he lost weight eating twinkies.

          It actually proves CICO is a sugar industry hoax.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >CICO is a conspiracy by Coca-Cola to make me fat!
            Meds

            • 4 months ago
              Anonymous

              Good goy. Eat your grains and take your pharmaceuticals.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                What are these 70's advertisements supposed to prove?

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                They're supposed to prove that sugar isn't fattening. Hilariously, people actually fell for it. Even today there are imbeciles who think CICO is a law of physics.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                If I eat 500 calories of pure sugar a day will I gain weight?

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                Sugar consumption never led to an increase in obesity though.
                Obesity had a sharp uptake in the late 70s when vegetable oil became the average cooking oil in households. Like fuck man we have millions of documented health forms proving this at this point.

                Sugar consumption in reality stayed almost the same as the pre-industrial sugar revolution.
                I think it's something like we eat 80 more calories a day from sugar sources, but almost 300 calories a day more from oil sources.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                My great grandpa made what he called moron titties. Filled a clean sock with sugar and had babies in the family suckle on that. He died of a heart attack at 55.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                My grandfather ate like a man just out of jail and died at 87, he also worked on a farm and never stopped moving.
                Grandmother lived to be 102 same lifestyle.
                Both always chain smoked their whole lives.

                Have you ever considered that your grandfather was a genetic anomaly and was meant to die at a young age with increasing probability?
                Some people can do everything right and just have one bad day Anon.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                Obesity had a sharp uptake when the American government told people to eat less fat and more carbs.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                Obesity had a sharp uptake in 1978 that directly correlated with the amount of vegetable oil ingested Anon.

                It's almost like The USA wasn't lying to people when they said people shouldn't over ingest in processed oils and everyone ignored the government and kept adding processed oils to every single thing.
                Meanwhile sugar and carb intake barely increased.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >they're supposed to prove that sugar isn't fattening.
                What does that have to do with CICO?

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                Basically the way the lie works is this

                1. All food is equally fattening when you control for calories
                2. Sugar can be measured and you can eat less of it
                3. Therefore sugar is not fattening

                Point #1 is false so the conclusions drawn from it are also false.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >CICO is wrong
                >just look at these sugar commercials designed to deceive you
                >They're deceiving you because CICO is wrong
                You've just gone in a circle. Nothing about your argument has disproved point #1.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                See:

                https://i.imgur.com/PgVnvvj.png

                In your imagination, weight is controlled by calories. In reality weight is controlled by hormones.

                >While all mice receiving the high-carbohydrate C diets ingested very similar amounts of food and lost similar quantities of energy through faeces, they displayed quite different body-weight gains.
                https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22863169/

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >1. All food is equally fattening
                Strawman. No CICOchad has ever claimed this.
                The statement "eating at a calorie surplus, regardless of the type of food you eat, will lead to weight gain" is not synonymous with "all food is equally fattening".

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                CICO by necessity is founded on the idea of calorie equivalence. Pic related.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

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

                Yeah that's what Sugar Information Inc spent millions of dollars tricking Amerigoys into believing. You're familiar with it because you're a goy.

                In reality eating sugar on a restricted diet just causes metabolic slowdown.

                it's amazing how they are pushing pure calories with no nutrition behind them as the "healthy" thing.
                macros, micros, amino acids, etc ? FUCK EM just eat this sugar thats real healthy
                God I HATE garden gnomeS SOOOOOOOO MUCH

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                When you think about it, goyim are the problem. Liars would be powerless without gullible goys.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                that bowl is WAY more than 1.5 cups, also
                >skim milk

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >our cereal will give you a marginal amount of protein
                >if you put milk in it

                gotta love those technically correct advertisements

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's assumed you're eating it with milk, fagtardarisimo.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah but the point is I could eat a bowl of Captain Crunch with milk and I'd still get protein and calcium. Crediting the cereal with the milk's nutritional content is borderline deceitful but they get away with it because, like, you said, it's assumed they go together. But the milk's still a separate product.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nobody is stopping you dickmongrel.

  12. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Uh bros...?
    Is this the holy grail to growing my gfs tits?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Good luck convincing her to start poking needles into her tits.

  13. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    you eating carbs is not localised insulin induced lipohypertrophy. your pic is retarded t1 betic injecting in 2 spots against the doctors orders, who recommend several injection areas so this+skin hardening via scarring doesn't happen. if you use pen, you should inject 4ish spots in abdomen, 4ish spots in thighs and potetially even glutes. slin pump with canyl placer can manage like 6 areas around abdomen but injection speed is way slower than pen so insulin gets more time to spread.

    t. t1 betus pro for 16+ years

    • 4 months ago
      thread hider

      Tell us your secrets to t1 body building how can we lose weight.

  14. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    That picture is silly and I’ve been a type 1 diabetic for 12 years. I did, however, stop injecting into my stomach because it seemed as thought it would get “stuck” there in pockets. I get a more rapid insulin response in my arms and my legs, but mostly arms.

  15. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    if i have a gut like this will i have to get surgery to get the skin down or if i wait long enough will it go on its own?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      There's no clear answer. Some people avoid loose skin despite being very obese. Best chance is eating a healthy diet. Pic related.

  16. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    if you think that there are foods that increase your satiety and keep you from overeating, you are against the notion of CICO where you can eat like shit, you just have to eat less of it.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      No? That's understanding that food has different properties based on what is in it; and that those properties can be used to help form good habits. The habits themselves are about calorie control.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >That's understanding that food has different properties based on what is in it

        if its just calories in and calories out, the type of food doesn't matter, only the calories it contains.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          If you eat them to 500 calories under your TDE yes. But you are not talking about that, you are saying here

          https://i.imgur.com/7bqNl4k.jpg

          if you think that there are foods that increase your satiety and keep you from overeating, you are against the notion of CICO where you can eat like shit, you just have to eat less of it.

          that using foods that are more, or less, calorie dense to control your calorie input somehow makes calories not the primary factor in weight loss.
          If you eat 1000 calories over your TDEE, you will get fatter; those calories can be from brick dust, or from apples, they will still make you fatter as your body stores excess energy in the form of fat. It is easier to eat less calories when you eat less calorie dense food as your stomach has a finite volume.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >somehow makes calories not the primary factor in weight loss.
            See:

            https://i.imgur.com/PgVnvvj.png

            In your imagination, weight is controlled by calories. In reality weight is controlled by hormones.

            >While all mice receiving the high-carbohydrate C diets ingested very similar amounts of food and lost similar quantities of energy through faeces, they displayed quite different body-weight gains.
            https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22863169/

            Primary factor in weight loss is not eating powdered carbs.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          "Calories out" isn't just how many calories you burn exercising, though. Basic metabolic processes, including digestion, account for a large portion of daily caloric expenditure and different foods require more or less energy to digest and have different influences on resting metabolic rate.

          It's true that if your caloric intake is low enough you'll be in a deficit regardless of where the calories come from but all other things being equal 1500 calories of pure sugar would not be as conductive to weight loss or bodyfat reduction as 1500 calories of protein and vegetables. Your body's not a bank account, there's more going on than just one number minus another

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >eat above maintenance
      >gain weight
      >eat below maintenance
      >lose weight
      wow

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      this is where the just eat less cico theory fails imo and Im super pro cico.
      But the truth is going on a 1500kcal surplus on ice creams and burgers is not only easy,its enjoyable while going on a 1500kcal surplus on cottage cheese and chicken is almost impossible.
      You cant stop at just eat less,you have to say eat this instead of this.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Or you could take the moderate route, which is always the thing you guys cope with the most.
        Why must I eat super strict?
        Why must I eat super relaxed?
        Reminder that Insulin spikes are not the same as chronically elevated insulin.
        Your body will not become resistant to insulin with a few spikes a week. It becomes resistant due to chronically elevated levels of insulin due to overeating and that's with any type of food.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Correct,I agree with your post anon.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Now getting your insulin sensitivity back is a completely different problem and that's where fatties always fail.

            Insulin sensitivity directly correlates to the struggle of a perfectly maintained diet.
            Uber fats can cut half their calories and not gain any insulin sensitivity. Which is insane that they were eating that much.
            Meanwhile pre-diabetics can easily cut 100 calories and gain a large portion of sensitivity back, effectively stopping diabetes altogether.

            For the mega-fats though. We are talking years, literal years of strict calorie control to see any sensitivity benefit and the likelyhood that if they snack at all negating potentially weeks of progress is where it gets them. Every single time.
            >b-but i've been eating strict for months, one binge day isn't going to hurt me
            It will if those months of strict eating only gave you a 1% increase to sensitivity.

            Meanwhile I binge eat every saturday, like clockwork, an absurd amount of food.
            And yes i'm bloated and gross on Sunday, but I don't have diabetes, and I don't have any glucose issues at all.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >hamburger bad
      >jap crap good

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >if you think that there are foods that increase your satiety and keep you from overeating, you are against the notion of CICO
      No

  17. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >pierce skin & fat cells
    >promote mitosis
    wow

  18. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Logical fallacy.
    By reducing calories in and maintaining TDEE it doesn't matter how large the fat cells get as they have to eventually reduce in size due to lack of glucose.
    nice bait though sure newfags will fall for it.

  19. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Calories in-Calories out
    >Injecting insulin

    How are these related?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      According to CICO fat retention is caused by 'calorie imbalance' (e.g. eating too much, exercising too little).

      Injecting insulin proves that fat retention is caused by hormones independent of calorie consumption.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        If you aren't a diabetic or a roider, how does this affect the regular human bean?
        This thread seems like a logical fallacy.
        >Using helmets reduce head injury
        >but what about helmets without the padding inside? huh? Gotcha, helmetfags.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          For a regular human it's the difference between being overweight or lean.

  20. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Eat fewer calories
    >Body produces less insulin due to fewer calories
    >Lose weight

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      carbohydrate restriction reduces insulin more

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        But carbohydrate restriction also reduces testosterone.
        You could simply eat carbs, workout (burning excess glucose) and move on with your life.
        While also having the benefit of increased cardiovascular strength, improved TDEE, and better hormone profile.

        Stop trying to take the easiest route from A-B, there are more beneficial routes in life.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >But carbohydrate restriction also reduces testosterone
          ive seen an unlabelled graph on here posted once but no link so can't comment. whereas there are some experiments showing the exact opposite
          >Total testosterone increased significantly from weeks 0 to 11 in the KD diet (118 ng·dl) as compared to the WD (-36 ng·dl) from pre to post
          https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28399015/

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Personally I take claims about testosterone at face value, because it doesn't actually matter. Unused testosterone floating around in blood isn't making anyone masculine.

            • 4 months ago
              Anonymous

              actually found one that showed it went down but definitely agree single blood markers can certainly be misleading
              >We also observed an unexpected decrease in testosterone concentration. Most of the studies conducted so far showed a negligible effect of KD on testosterone [50,51], whilst our results showed a drop of ~11%, accompanied by a significant decrease in IGF-1 (~15%).
              https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33530512/

  21. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    So did they reverse it for the poor dude or at least pay for the surgery to have a half way decent flat stomach again?

  22. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Where is the keto retard when you need him the most

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Taking one of his three daily 5 hour naps.
      He needs his sleep.

  23. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >let me take this really exaggerated extreme example vs a method that works for literally 99% of the population
    >This means I'm right.

  24. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >leanest most athletic people in the world eat cupious amounts of carbs
    >retards still listening to dyels and fatties on the internet
    I'm starting to think all keto posts are bait

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Just look how athetic this woman is! Thanks, carbs.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because carbs aren't bad for you if you use them.
      >burn energy
      >glucose depletes
      >utilize carbs
      >glucose increases, goes to cells, and stabilizes in blood stream
      anyone saying carbs or sugar bad is a retard.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        So if you eat less than your maintenance of carbs you burn them and you dont gain weight? Thats sounds like a concept I have heard of before

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah that's what Sugar Information Inc spent millions of dollars tricking Amerigoys into believing. You're familiar with it because you're a goy.

          In reality eating sugar on a restricted diet just causes metabolic slowdown.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >In reality eating sugar on a restricted diet just causes metabolic slowdown.
            like i'm going to believe some over weight mouth breather who can't even run a mile.
            adding an extra scoop of sugar to my coffee fat boy.
            I'll spend 2 more minutes running this afternoon to burn it off, while you sit there being oh so healthy.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wait that sounds like insane budget tip, so I have to just eat carbs only for few weeks and then my metabolism is so slow I can just eat 500 calories and maintain my weight?!?

            • 4 months ago
              Anonymous

              Yes. Your body composition will be flabby and low muscle mass. You will be cold. Your hair and fingernails will grow slower. Your liver and kidneys will filter less efficiently. Your heart rate will slow down. But you'll save money on goyfeed.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Wait until the keto gay comes in and says you won't gain weight if you eat 500+ calories over TDEE, but it's fat so it's fine.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Define TDEE. Then go look up the word
            >tautology
            you will probably fail to understand anything because you're a moron. It's worth a try, though.

            • 4 months ago
              Anonymous

              Total Daily Energy Expenditure.
              The measured amount of energy used on a daily basis through both basic biological functions and excess activity both mentally and physically.
              More accurately measured through the process of measuring and averaging calories over a weekly/monthly schedule.
              As weight goes down, energy expulsion goes down and therefore activity must also go up to maintain weight loss. Otherwise maintain activity and calorie intake to maintain weight.

              Let's see how you cope with this newfag.
              I've used it for years and have weight the same amount for almost 15 years now.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                You didn't actually need to post it in the thread. Everyone knows what TDEE is. You were looking up the definition for yourself, so you could learn.

                Now do step 2. Learn what a tautology is.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                If everyone knows what TDEE is why are you coping with the fact you don't understand CICO?

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                One must understand CICO to understand why it is false. You, yourself, don't understand CICO. That's why you believe it. You probably think it is a law of physics.

                Learn what a tautology is. Then analyze your own statement about weight gain and TDEE.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                So you're admitting that you claimed everyone understands TDEE, but you yourself backtracked and are now stating you don't understand TDEE.

                So which is it Anon, do you understand TDEE or do you not understand TDEE?

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                Sorry dude we seem to have hit the limits of your English literacy. Otherwise you must be hallucinating. I never said any such thing.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >backtracks even more.
                Your quote

                You didn't actually need to post it in the thread. Everyone knows what TDEE is. You were looking up the definition for yourself, so you could learn.

                Now do step 2. Learn what a tautology is.

                >everyone knows what TDEE is

                One must understand CICO to understand why it is false. You, yourself, don't understand CICO. That's why you believe it. You probably think it is a law of physics.

                Learn what a tautology is. Then analyze your own statement about weight gain and TDEE.

                >understand CICO to understand why it is false
                You are blatantly admitting you don't understand what TDEE is.
                1. You are comparing TDEE to CICO
                2. You think CICO is false.

                Every moment I am not partaking in additional resources, I am losing resources. That is indeed a law. Now just because we are not measuring it in an appropriate to read weight does not mean that I am not using energy to simply make sweat. Which I assure you, I am using energy to make sweat. I am using energy to breathe. I am using energy simply to exist.
                Therefore I am losing weight at every single moment that I am not partaking in a new substance that we would define as food, water, "drink".

                You don't get to say things Anon and we just believe you. That's not how the real world works.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                Bizarre. Save your strawmanning for third parties.

                Go look up what a tautology is. Then go back and look at yourself saying this:
                >you won't gain weight if you eat 500+ calories over TDEE
                You're saying the same thing twice.
                >gain weight
                >eat 500+ calories over TDEE
                This is a tautology. You think it's a meaningful argument but that's only because you're unintelligent.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >This is a tautology.
                that is not a tautology.
                A tautology is when you say the exact same thing using different terminology.
                >they formed a line
                >that group formed a queue
                is a tautology

                Saying
                >i weigh less than I did yesterday
                is not the same as saying
                >my caloric intake for the month was slightly lower than last month
                One is a statement on how I have lost weight from one day to the next.
                The other is a statement on how CICO deficit was lower of a total month than the month before.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                How does one gain weight (i.e. body fat) without eating over TDEE?

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                That guy disappeared real quick after this question.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                Cancer

  25. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is what michael phelps eats, see, he eats those scary carbs a lot, right? Must mean he is overweight?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >people who do 8 hours a day of aerobic exercise can eat bread and not get fat

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Heh. Guess again.

  26. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    CICO worked for me, if it doesn't work for you you must be the problem

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      CICO works for everyone who isn't drinking copious amounts of oils to reach their calorie goals.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Cico has never worked for anyone in human history. Not even once.

        Retards who claim CICO worked for them all changed the type of food they ate.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          lmao look at this fucking loser trying to justify his overeating.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Redditmoron go lift already, stop making excuses
          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Fogle

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            How do we know it was calorie restriction and walking? What if it was all the dicky that brought him down to healthy?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Jared Fogle changed the type of food he ate. That was the whole advertising campaign. He was a subway spokesman.

            • 4 months ago
              Anonymous

              Jared also did speed off the boners of young men.

            • 4 months ago
              Anonymous

              >sneed oils and bread bad
              >akchyually it's is changing the food you eat

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                Just to reiterate, the ENTIRE MARKETING CAMPAIGN behind Jared Fogle was about changing the type of food he ate. They advertised it for years.

                You are an extraordinary dimwit for not noticing.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                the ENTIRE MARKETING CAMPAIGN doesn't change the physics of jared losing weight by changing his calorie intake from 10,000 to 2,000

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                BRO BRO DON'T YOU KNOW
                YOU CAN EAT 10k CALORIES OF HEALTHY FOOD AND STILL LOSE WEIGHT BRO LIKE U JUST CAN MKAY ALRIGHT?

                lol this thread is hilarious.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                The weirdest thing about this conversation is that it started from this post:

                Cico has never worked for anyone in human history. Not even once.

                Retards who claim CICO worked for them all changed the type of food they ate.

                >Cico has never worked for anyone in human history. Not even once.
                >
                >Retards who claim CICO worked for them all changed the type of food they ate.

                So you attacked that post by... posting a guy who changed the type of food he ate. LMAO. Just LMAO.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                Reddit

                Spacing

                Cope

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not reddit spacing.

                Reddit spacing.

                Learn the difference, chud.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                Just because

                You post

                A little girl

                Doesn't take away your

                Reddit stink

                -haiku bot

                >14 likes 5 shares

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                This is not reddit spacing.

                This is reddit spacing.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well it wasn’t aimed at bread obviously, the turkey sandwich was always front and center.

  27. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    it's all so tiring bros

  28. 4 months ago
    Anonymous
  29. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just legalize cocaine again.

  30. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >calories in
    Can be pretty accurately measured by tracking the nutrients that enter and leave the body (so, accounting for digestion). While processing of nutrients vary depending on metabolic pathway, organisms are pretty efficient in squeezing out joules and we can predict the total energy extracted from given mixture.
    >calories out
    Again, can be measured pretty accurately. Most nutrients are eventually broken down to CO2, water, and (for proteins) urea. You can measure that CO2 and calculate the calories spent for activity or simply heat.

    So, both CI and CO are objective things (do note that I didn't mention once the reaction of body to missing/extra calories).

    The fact that it's hard to put a human being in isolated flask and study him as a lab mouse means that we need to come up with different approximations.
    Thousands of athletes successfully use calorie counting in their cut/bulk cycles, so that means that these approximations are useful for general population.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      your body isnt a bunsen burner

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, the body is not a burner. It's a glorified fuel cell.
        Every joule of energy usable by the body (with a couple of exceptions) end up as high-energy bonds in ATP. You don't "burn" sugar or fatty acids, they are merely convenient chemicals that go down the energy pathways.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >these approximations are useful for general population
      Actually far from being useful, it's actually detrimental. Tracking calories makes it more difficult to successfully lose weight.

      The most effective diet strategy studied in humans is unlimited calorie low-carb.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >posting random articles from pubmed
        Two can play this game

        >Low carbohydrate versus isoenergetic balanced diets for reducing weight and cardiovascular risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis
        >Some popular weight loss diets restricting carbohydrates (CHO) claim to be more effective, and have additional health benefits in preventing cardiovascular disease compared to balanced weight loss diets.
        >In non-diabetic participants, our analysis showed little or no difference in mean weight loss in the two groups at 3-6 months (MD 0.74 kg, 95%CI -1.49 to 0.01 kg; I2 = 53%; n = 1745, 14 trials; moderate quality evidence) and 1-2 years (MD 0.48 kg, 95%CI -1.44 kg to 0.49 kg; I2 = 12%; n = 1025; 7 trials, moderate quality evidence).

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          LMAO unironically posting the debunked Naude et al review. You are an absolute clown

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Post the debunk, then. I hope it's not a Youtube video.

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

            It's not a game, friend. There's no way to win. Only lessons for you to learn.

            You're a defender of the status quo. An attack dog for the rich and powerful. You see people sharing knowledge that could be inconvenient for the globohomo agenda and you do whatever you can to suppress it. That's why you think this is a win/lose scenario. For you, a "win" is to successfully protect Pfizer/Monsanto/Coca-Cola/etc from information which could hurt their profits.

            We're on Nepalese bacon-weaving country club, I'm not trying to secure the funding or push a new law, and neither are you. Nutrition science is a shitfest, but claiming "YOUR studies are globohomo lies while MY studies are irrefutable source of truth" is a bit dishonest.
            Give me evidence (which you did) and show WHY the evidence to the contrary doesn't count.

            • 4 months ago
              Anonymous

              its right here

              >A 2014 meta-analysis from the universities of Stellenbosch and Cape Town reported that diets with a lower-carbohydrate (CHO) content are no more effective for producing weight loss than are high-CHO diets, so-called isoenergetic 'balanced' diets. We have re-examined the article and found numerous errors, many material in nature. Studies were included that failed the authors' own inclusion criteria; invalid and subjective meta-analysis sub-grouping was used; and data extraction was repeatedly inaccurate. All but one error favoured the balanced diet. The article was widely publicised, highly impactful and inaccurate. This begs the question: mistake or mischief?
              try again

              https://doi.org/10.7196/samj.2016.v106.i12.12072
              >In conclusion, when meta-analysis was performed on the 10 studies that qualified for inclusion in the study of Naude et al using their own criteria, the data confirmed that the lower-CHO diet produced significantly greater weight loss than did the balanced diet.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                [...]

                Okay, I read the refutation, and it doesn't really raise any red flags. The Naude study results should probably be discarded.

                However, do note that the authors admit themselves that they are involved in making diet-related books, so they have their skin in the game.

            • 4 months ago
              Anonymous

              I called you an attack dog, not a businessman. You're a subhuman. An NPC. You instinctively try to suppress any information or discussion that disturbs the status quo.

              You think this is a win/lose scenario because you have a clear goal (i.e. conceal the truth). I just engage in conversation to learn things or share knowledge.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >A 2014 meta-analysis from the universities of Stellenbosch and Cape Town reported that diets with a lower-carbohydrate (CHO) content are no more effective for producing weight loss than are high-CHO diets, so-called isoenergetic 'balanced' diets. We have re-examined the article and found numerous errors, many material in nature. Studies were included that failed the authors' own inclusion criteria; invalid and subjective meta-analysis sub-grouping was used; and data extraction was repeatedly inaccurate. All but one error favoured the balanced diet. The article was widely publicised, highly impactful and inaccurate. This begs the question: mistake or mischief?
          try again

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Of course he posts lies. Typical leftist. They will say anything to get the result they want (submission to the rich).

            • 4 months ago
              Anonymous

              ben shapiro pls go

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's not a game, friend. There's no way to win. Only lessons for you to learn.

          You're a defender of the status quo. An attack dog for the rich and powerful. You see people sharing knowledge that could be inconvenient for the globohomo agenda and you do whatever you can to suppress it. That's why you think this is a win/lose scenario. For you, a "win" is to successfully protect Pfizer/Monsanto/Coca-Cola/etc from information which could hurt their profits.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You're a defender of the status quo. An attack dog for the rich and powerful. You see people sharing knowledge that could be inconvenient for the globohomo agenda and you do whatever you can to suppress it. That's why you think this is a win/lose scenario. For you, a "win" is to successfully protect Pfizer/Monsanto/Coca-Cola/etc from information which could hurt their profits.
            Thank you for posting this and other well-meaning ideas. I wish to be like You some day. It feels so lonely speaking the truth. Thank you Thank you

  31. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why don't the anti-CICO coping fatties just let me lock them in a basement for a few months?
    I'm sure the starving Africans are just pretending.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      You just don't understand the position of anti-CICO people. Nobody is claiming that calories have no effect at all or that it's possible to gain weight without eating. The point that we are making is that it's not ALL about calories, and that there are other things such as hormones that matter just as much.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's hard to take them seriously with statements like that
        >Cico has never worked for anyone in human history. Not even once.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's a true statement. You can tell because the only rebuttal thus far has been to post a Subway spokesman whose diet strategy was to change the type of food he ate.

          If CICO worked for anyone, ever, it would be easy to post one example.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >CICO worked for anyone, ever, it would be easy to post one example.
            Starve yourself fatty.

            • 4 months ago
              Anonymous

              See, your post is just more proof that CICO has never worked for anyone. Even the believers can't imagine it working the way CICO dogma claims.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because unless it's absolutely same diet with portions cut in half, you will be screeching "It's not the calorie restriction, it's the changing of food!"
            And noone diets like that. At least because you need the same (or greater) amount of protein fitted into smaller calorie budget.

            However, tons of people still lose weight while
            1) eating fruits and sweets in reasonable amounts
            2) eating 30%+ of daily calories in carbs

            • 4 months ago
              Anonymous

              So the CICO principles have never actually worked in practice. I'm glad we can agree.

              >you need the same (or greater) amount of protein fitted into smaller calorie budget.
              Why? [Rhetorical question. It's because CICO is false.]

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                Your strawman vision for CICO is intentionally flawed and obviously not used in practice.

                Because body needs protein for maintenance. Or it WILL destroy extra muscle regardless of calorie intake. You may even gain fat while losing muscle.
                Obviously, every non-retarded person wants to avoid it and eats enough protein to preserve muscle.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >strawman
                It's textbook CICO.

                If you have to deviate from CICO to make a diet work, then CICO is false.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                What diet are you arguing in favor of? I understand CICO to mean reducing the quantity of an already healthy diet (in the sense of adequate micros/macros) to below your TDEE to drive weightloss. I do this once or twice a year and it works. It should be fucking obviously to everyone that exclusively consuming pepperoni pizza in a caloric deficit is a bad idea.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not arguing in favor of any diet, my subhuman NPC friend. I don't want to hold your leash. I don't want to be your master.

                I'm sharing knowledge with my fellow humans. We use information to make logical decisions. You wouldn't understand.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                So you're trolling. Cool.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, I'm sharing truthful information. Truth upsets leftists but that's not the intention.

                It's weird how NPCs (you) always act like I am trying to get you to do something. If I could get you to do one thing do you know what it would be? Guess.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                If you really had other people's best interests in mind, you wouldn't be playing guessing games, you coy fuck.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                What makes you think I have your best interests in mind? You're a subhuman attack dog for the rich and powerful. I sincerely wish you death.

                I only care about my human friends. Luckily I know that you aren't going to eat a healthy diet no matter how much I discuss it here. You will eat grains, just like you got your clotshots. Information only affects those whose brains can process it.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                Meds.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Meds.
                You're taking enough for both of us, I'm sure.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >shizoanon thinks that he's arguing with the same anon
                Anon, arguing on the internet doesn't make you a white race saviour.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >body needs protein for maintenance
                If I can cram 200 grams of protons into 3000 calories without even resorting to whey shakes, how is your average sedentary joe, who only needs around 130 grams (which by following my diet but reducing portion sizes would equal 1950 calories) still fucking this up? I'll tell you how: by being a sedentary fuck and overeating.

  32. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Doesn't say anything about there being more fat in your body you're just inflating the volume of the cell. Now put down the fork fat fuck

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Good observation. The fat tissue grew without any additional calories being ingested.

      What's your conclusion?

  33. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    kek this entire thread is just a fatty cope bait thread.
    >Uhhhhh calories don't matter actually!
    >Eat what you want just avoid rice I think!
    Lol, have some self control lardlords.
    3>2>1

  34. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    I cut once or twice a year using a CICO model where I ensure I'm hitting my micronutrient and dietary fat needs for hormonal support every day. Just install chronometers and play with your diet until you're consistently making all the vitamin/mineral bars green while also hitting your protein/fat/calorie targets. It's genuinely not that fucking hard. I don't understand the anti-cico argument. Calories/activity obviously control weight, but you must also be getting enough micronutrients and fat to support your activity levels. If you're vitamin deficient you'll crash. If you're dietary fat deficient you'll crash. If you're not consuming any carbs you'll be annoying on the Internet. Just have some discernment ffs.

  35. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    CICO is always right. If you're burning fewer calories because of "muh hormons", your CO is lower and you need to consume less calories, ideally in a more nutrient-dense, less calorie-dense form. If your food is more readily absorbed because it's been processed to shit and you're gaining weight, simply eat less until you stop gaining and also maybe eat some vegetables for once in your life (without slathering them in fat and sugar, you fat fuck).

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      i eat as much fat as i can stomach and i dont gain weight. i dont think it would be the same with sugar

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      CICO is always wrong. It's a tautology.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Tautologies are necessarily true statements.
        >I exist
        Is tautological and it's obviously true.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >>I exist
          thats not a tautology. would be more like
          >I exist because I was brought into existence
          meaningless statement that explains nothing

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's abbreviated

            Tautologies are inherently false. An attempt to derive meaning from the meaningless.

            It might be vacuous but a tautological statement is always true in the logical sense.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Tautologies are inherently false. An attempt to derive meaning from the meaningless.

  36. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    People are responding to you because your argument is annoying. It is true that not being deficient in vital nutrients supports general health which is advantageous for weightloss. Most people do not recommend being deficient in key micronutrients/protein/fat when cutting. You're arguing past everyone ITT and not accepting nuance.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      You missed the argument entirely. See:

      https://i.imgur.com/PgVnvvj.png

      In your imagination, weight is controlled by calories. In reality weight is controlled by hormones.

      >While all mice receiving the high-carbohydrate C diets ingested very similar amounts of food and lost similar quantities of energy through faeces, they displayed quite different body-weight gains.
      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22863169/

      >same protein
      >same fat
      >same carbs
      >same total calories
      >same micronutrients
      >DIFFERENT body composition

      To summarize: the only thing that matters for body composition is hormones.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Oh okay, that's interesting. Maybe the powders were more bioavailable?

        https://i.imgur.com/jk8KsKg.jpg

        >Meds.
        You're taking enough for both of us, I'm sure.

        I resisted the clot shot.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Powders cause an exaggerated hormone response.

          Here's a powerpoint presentation on the subject if you're genuinely interested:

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'll go watch it. I read the study you linked and didn't expect the findings to be what they were. I'm interested now.

  37. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    CICO is an over simplification, but nonetheless eating less + regular moderate exercise fixes obesity in 99% of people.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >eating less + regular moderate exercise fixes obesity in 99% of people.
      It actually fails 99% of the time. Strange that you think otherwise.

      Are you aware that there's an obesity epidemic?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        > fails 99% of the time

        Oh you are upping the failure rate to 99% percent now?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >It actually fails 99% of the time. Strange that you think otherwise.
        It doesn't. Fatties fail adhering to it. You need to carefully keep track of what you eat to get an accurate CI. You need to carefully keep track of your current BMR and caloric expenditure through exercise to get an accurate CO. If your body more easily stores the calories from a particular foodsource, you need to adjust your CO for that. All of this is still CICO, just more nuanced and accurate. Grains, sugar, seed oils, hormones or whatever else only changes the balance of the CICO equation. They don't magically conjure mass from thin air. Just because you're a fat fuck who can't control his diet and stick to an exercise schedule, doesn't mean there's a grand conspiracy to make you fat. Your whole spiel offers no actionable solutions. Mine does: hit the gym and eat a salad once in a while, you fat fuck.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >give advice
          >it fails
          >"my advice works 100% of the time you just didn't do it right"
          LOL.

          I'm lean, FYI.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Are you aware that there's an obesity epidemic?
        Really? Despite the average person exercising more, working more manual labour and eating less then ever before?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah. Calorie intake has remained stable or declined but obesity keeps going up.

          Totally weird since everyone knows about calories and CICO and 'eat less, move more'. And as you said it works 99% of the time.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >random graph
            >no line for activity levels
            ITTIG

  38. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >morons on this board flinging shit nonstop cico this keto that
    >start making homemade food, stop spending ludicrous amounts of money on hilariously overpriced dogshit takeout
    >immediately start feeling better, losing fat like no tomorrow
    what are you schizophrenics even arguing about, just eat less lamo

  39. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Since calories are made up and now debunked, what is the best way to lose weight? Can I just identify as jacked?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >what is the best way to lose weight
      Unlimited meat and eggs.

  40. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    it's not even worth arguing with people who think CICO is bullshit. I can't make myself dumb enough to understand your position.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      meat and eggs bro. you wuolodn't get it because you have I N F L A M M A T I O N

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not so hard to understand. See:

      https://i.imgur.com/PgVnvvj.png

      In your imagination, weight is controlled by calories. In reality weight is controlled by hormones.

      >While all mice receiving the high-carbohydrate C diets ingested very similar amounts of food and lost similar quantities of energy through faeces, they displayed quite different body-weight gains.
      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22863169/

      To summarize:
      >same protein
      >same fat
      >same carbs
      >same total calories
      >same micronutrients
      >DIFFERENT body composition

      Very clear proof CICO is false. Also proves that the protein:energy theory is false.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >in mice
        into the trash it goes.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Laws of physics don't apply to mice?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

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

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >in mice
        into the trash it goes.

        If you need someone to tell you mice and humans are a different species and respond to nutrition ad energy differently then the discussion is already over because you're a fucking moron.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Can you explain your rationale?

          This is the first time I've seen someone suggest CICO only applies to humans.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >To summarize:
        >same protein
        >same fat
        >same carbs
        >same total calories
        >same micronutrients
        >DIFFERENT body composition

        You forgot one key part of the study pal. Interesting you left that out in you 'refutation' of CICO

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >You forgot one key part of the study pal. Interesting you left that out in you 'refutation' of CICO

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            So read the discussion of the paper that was linked, definitely doesn't refute your claims. But I guess all you do is look at the pictures and never read the text that goes with it!

            • 4 months ago
              Anonymous

              You're being vague because you know this is an argument you've already lost from a factual perspective.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                > The pellets of this C diet have an exceptionally hard texture and are therefore difficult to chew, to swallow and may need huge amounts of energy for handling in the gastrointestinal tract. They may also cause a loss of energy by the delivery of larger amounts of undigested starch to the microbiota and may after all produce an artificially ‘lean phenotype’.

                Oops, your own paper proves your leap of faith is nothing more than a trip into a mud puddle. Wallow more pig

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >may need
                >may also
                >may after all
                See, we both know you're wrong. We both know you lost the argument.

                You're just posting anything you think will trick third party observers. Your goal in this thread is to defend megacorporations.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Your goal in this thread is to defend megacorporations.
                By quoting your paper? Researcher doing the right thing and describing issues that may have occurred that would require further research, and you are crying to the heavens that the emperor has clothes.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                The results of the paper prove CICO is false.

                The researchers speculated about the mechanism. They were very clear that it is speculation.
                >may
                >may
                >may
                Their speculation doesn't somehow salvage CICO. CICO is still false.

                Also their speculation is probably wrong. They clearly didn't know about how hormones change body composition and food structure changes hormones. For that info you can see the powerpoint presentation linked here:

                Powders cause an exaggerated hormone response.

                Here's a powerpoint presentation on the subject if you're genuinely interested:

                Anyway you and I both know what you're doing. It doesn't seem like anyone else is reading the thread anymore so you're probably not fooling anyone.

              • 4 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Their speculation doesn't somehow salvage CICO. CICO is still false.

                So it doesnt prove CICO is true, yet somehow its definitely false. Run more loops around your skull fuckhead than a mouse in a wheel.

                >probably
                >doesn't seem
                >you're probably

                See, I can do the green arrow trick against you as well like a well trained tiger.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >same CI
        Where in the study does it say that they had the same CO?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Faeces energy (kJ/d)

  41. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >tfw your stomach has the Peter Griffin chin

  42. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ketoschizo do you at least get paid to do this shit? I hope so.

  43. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Man, I cant even keep up with what is going on in this thread.

    Are we saying that to lose weight, simply eat less calories than you can burn? I mean, that's common sense, right?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >to lose weight, simply lose weight
      How?

  44. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >calorie bros: hormones don't matter
    Nice strawman, CICOchads have never claimed this.

  45. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    I watched the presentation you linked. His conclusions mirror the diet I already happen to adhere to. Thanks for the recommendation, I'm going to go through his situation list.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      *Citation
      Phoneposting at work.

  46. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    t1d here, I put infusion sites (which deliver insulin) on my upper butt for several years and now have a slightly fat ass even when skinny, is this the cause?

  47. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Good thing I don't inject insulin, retard

  48. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Booba!

  49. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    does cooming burn calories?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Any kind of activity does. In terms of CICO it would fall under the "NEAT" category of burning energy, non-exercise activity thermogenesis, like brushing your teeth or petting your dog, any kind of movement that isn't deliberate exercise.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *