Why do people think that "calories in, calories out" is bullshit? I'm a living example that it's not. When I wanted to lose weight, I planned out all my meals in terms of calorie limit on a daily basis using an Excel spreadsheet. I rigidly adhered to it and exercised. I LOST WEIGHT RELIABLY. I'm a true believer in it because it actually worked for me. So why do people still insist it's bullshit when it actually works for anybody who tries it and genuinely adheres to it?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
they're coping because they're too lazy to track their calories or too impulsive to endure being hungry
>they're too lazy to track their calories or too impulsive to endure being hungry
I've never tracked a calorie or been hungry while losing weight. Simply eat clean and work a physical job + gym to shed the pounds.
Nobody thinks that. You gotta move on from basic arithmetic at some point, though. There are more interesting things to think about.
I've tried nearly every diet and exercise you can think of, but when I do CICO I can almost set my watch to how much weight I lose.
As OP says, you have to rigidly follow it, because it's easy to screw up if you binge eat.. but it's hands down the best way I've ever tried to lose weight.
There's some dude on insta who lost a ton of weight.. and he makes pretty decent looking food that all fits between 1800-2000 calories.
Intermittent fasting can help as you can eat more satisfying foods as the fasting prevents calorie overload.
And yeah counting is a pain but worth it.
after doing cico for months I have come to realize 2000 calories is a lot of food
my metabolism is probably fricked after this diet and I'm probably gonna burn only 1400 calories a day as a male for the next 6 years so I look with envy at how much I could eat if I could eat 2000 calories a day
Can’t say I’ve had the same experience. When I diet with simple calorie reduction, I’m left less satisfied and more miserable than if I had just not eaten at all. The puny little meals are just pointless and irritating. So fasting it is for me.
>it's easy to screw up if you binge eat
Even then if its like a days worth of doing that as a treat you wont put on any substancial amount of weight, just go right back to under eating and youre right back where you left off.
t. 118kg to 98kg 6'3
Bro you are still overweight. You should be around 70kg to fall under a normal weight.
I've been lifting for 10 years, im happy with about 95, expecially with my job I need a weight advantage for my job to remain safe
Unless you look like this you're fat and not an athlete.
Fatties are just trying to repeat a lie long enough that it becomes true because that's less effort on their part than closing their bottomless maws.
It is mostly bullshit as a diet model, from least to most fattening it's respectively protein, carbs, then fats. But even with fats there are less and more fattening ones, in other words there are fats that will increase metabolism, and be used as building blocks/energy preferentially, while others that will decrease metabolism and be stored as fat. You can eat a shit ton of carbs and protein and not get fat, why? Because your body doesn't preferentially store these macros as fat, it will increase metabolism to burn it off before ever storing it, the protein will go into building blocks for the body and rest will be turned into sugar. Your body will raise it's metabolism to burn off all the sugar before it stores any of it as fat. As for fat, your body will preferentially use certain fats like saturated fat as building blocks and energy before it starts storing it, while with fats that come from seed oils it will preferentially store it because it's toxic and doesn't want to use it. That's why people who are fat have such shit metabolisms and their fat composition literally reflects the type of fat they eat. Find any healthy weight person and they'll have way less pufas than the obese person. Even with people who on paper have a healthy weight but shit body composition like asians they will have this problem and simply just be genetically predisposed to holding more visceral fat, fat that you can't really see.
Actually fats are the most difficult for your body to store as fat while carbs are the easiest. Simple carbohydrate chains are easier to turn into complex carbohydrate aka fats than complex carbohydrate chains that have to be broken into simple carbohydrate chains then back into complex carbohydrate chains. Yes they can make you fat quite easily though as they are higher in calories so they meet your body's energy needs easily and then turn the carbs and proteins you have eaten into body fat instead of energy. It is so ineffecient for the body to turn fats into fats that if a person is eating pretty much all fat it makes it very hard for them to gain bf. However without a calorie defficit they still won't lose weight so CICO still comes out on top. One benefit of keto is it does prep the body to breakdown bf by forcing it to produce more enzymes that break down fat so whenever they are in a deficit their fat is more quickly burned off. Really keto is only ideal for land whales who need to quickly lose any fat they can, because it is killing them. For anyone who isn't morbidly obese it isn't the ideal diet and you should just go for high nutrient content in your food and eating a calorie deficit.
Ur one of the few that it works on, it doesnt work for everyone
Calories are a measurement of heat. Past 50 years the population obesity has been rising, yet the amount of calories measurement people have been eating for that same time period has stayed almost the same.
>the amount of calories measurement people have been eating for that same time period has stayed almost the same.
i'm fairly sure people in the 80's weren't solo eating a large pizza and half a gallon of soda in one meal
It's the protein:fat ratio.
I was talking to a fat family member struggling to lose weight despite "eating a calorie deficit." Come to find out her breakfast was one Jimmy Dean sausage breakfast sandwich and black coffee. only 400 calories and they didn't eat again they had their protein shake in the late afternoon. On the surface, it's a great cut diet. Then, I looked at the label. 12g protein, 29g fat, 26g carbs. Then, I found out she was putting 2 TABLESPOONS of olive oil (again, "healthy") on her salads thus making them 200 calories.
That's why shit is bad now. Everything's so fricking high in fat.
Yet the amount of calories consumed is the same from 1980s to today, what has changed is our seed oil consumption. Seed oil has gone up in correlation with obesity. We eat the same calories in the 1980s as we do today. Even in the past 5 years or so, sugar consumption has gone down, yet obesity has still gone up.
It is the seed oils making us fat, with processed food pesticides, colourings, preservatives, anything unnaturally processed.
Youre only talking about the CI part.
>yet the amount of calories measurement people have been eating for that same time period has stayed almost the same.
lmao no it hasn't, moron. People are literally eating more than before, in addition to being far more sedentary.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/04news/calorie.htm
>The study finds U.S. women increased their daily calorie consumption 22 percent between 1971 and 2000, from 1542 calories per day to 1877 calories. During the same period the calorie intake for men increased 7 percent from 2450 calories per day to 2618 calories.
And there's a bigger spike from 2000 and onwards.
https://www.businessinsider.com/american-calorie-intake-last-52-years-diet-food-eating-increase-science-2017-6
As of that article (2017), the average consumption of an adult in the US was 3600 kcal.
CICO always "works" if you apply it hard enough. i.e. if you keep decreasing your caloric intake until you lose weight. but the effects on different people varies enormously. e.g. some people will lose more fat than expected and feel great, some will lose the expected amount and feel okay, and some will lose almost no fat and even some muscle and feel like shit. your basal metabolic rate and non-exercise activity thermogenesis can change quite significantly just from changing your caloric intake or from the type of foods you eat.
Sorry, could you repeat that? I couldn't make out what you were saying with all the donuts in your mouth.
They're lying to themselves. It's as simple as that. Like you, I lose weight reliably and predictably when I count my calories accurately.
Telling fatties to eat less calories is like telling alcoholics to drink less alcohol. If you don't attack the hormonal reason why they don't reach satiety then CICO won't work. Saying CICO is putting the cart before the horse. Yes you should fast, yes you should eat high satiety foods (high fiber, moderate fats and proteins), yea you should exercise for other aspects of your health since overall they do very little for the thermodynamics of calories. Saying a calorie of goybean slop is equal to a calorie of a spinach quinoa chicken dish is stupid and borderline malicious.
this guy knows
yeah, how to suck Black person dick
cope
Of course you have to do CICO with healthy foods. You can lose weight still with unhealthy foods, but you are still just going to ruin your health.
Nobody says it’s bullshit, CICO at its core is just eat less food = lose fat
It’s just annoying when every single thread about diet optimization is derailed into “bro just do a caloric deficit to lose weight” like bruh not all of us are trying to lose weight. Acting like 100cals of candy and 100cals of eggs is the exact same is stupid too
>CICO at its core is just eat less food = lose fat
Factually false. You can eat more and lose fat on CICO
>bro just do a caloric deficit to lose weight” like bruh not all of us are trying to lose weight
Very simple. Do a caloric surplus then
>very simple. Do a caloric surplus then
You don’t understand. Once you’re at a healthy weight and you can maintain that healthy weight by eating to satiety, there is no need to count calories. At this point yoi can still optimize your health and athletic performance by adjusting your diet in ways other than the # of calories eaten.
CICO is really just for fatties losing weight for the first time and people trying to go from gymbro build to completely shredded (and even then, cutting to sub12% bodyfat is a lot easier when you’re optimizing hormones, satiety and meal timing vs just treating food as a single numerical value such as calories)
>Once you’re at a healthy weight and you can maintain that healthy weight by eating to satiety
A true gymbro would never do that. We must always improve
>Why do people think that "calories in, calories out" is bullshit?
People don't. It's really just a IST thing among some schizos
In real life even people on keto will do CICO
The only ones who say CICO doesn't work are memediet morons who still believe fasting, vegan, keto, etc. that they've just started are the ONLY way to lose fat. These people are called "homosexuals", and should be avoided at all costs.
It doesn't work in the fact that it's not sustainable when done haphazardly because quality of foods catching up with people who choose low cal or low portion pizza or something with even less nutrients. Also saying CICO works means any doctor who claims someone has a thyroid issue is a lying sack of shit. So why don't CICO people go after them?
>thyroid issue
Fattie excuse
>Also saying CICO works means any doctor who claims someone has a thyroid issue is a lying sack of shit
No, it means you don't understand cico. Thyroid issues affect CO. It's your fault if you don't adjust CI to compensate.
they don't understand dynamic systems.
I just believe that it's not the end-all of weight loss. I think other factors come into play like hormones or other biological mechanisms. You have plenty of overweight people in prison despite everyone eating the same meals give or take, and yes I'm aware of extra snacks you can buy, but you won't have enough to just pig out and get obese.
>I just believe that it's not the end-all of weight loss
CICO isn't a diet. It's used for mass gain as well
>I think other factors come into play like hormones or other biological mechanisms.
Quite obvious, however a caloric deficit will necessarily make you lose weight, maybe not as fast as some but you'll. Same with mass
>caloric deficit will necessarily make you lose weight, maybe not as fast as some but you'll. Same with mass
I agree but I believe it's the hardest way to lose weight. I have a theory that if you fixed underlying issues then the weight would come off a lot quicker than just cutting calories.
Unless you have massive genetic disorders, losing weight is the easiest thing in the world. Until you reach single digits bf of course
if you're constantly hungry, then it's very hard to cut calories over the long run for the average person.
The average person will not lose weight no matter what
I hang out with South Americans who drink liquid gold all day and 100% believe some people are incapable of losing weight. Also 5 sugars in their coffees because it tastes disgusting without it.
>I think other factors come into play like hormones or other biological mechanisms.
Are they as easily manipulated as how much food you eat?
probably, but like I mentioned, you have people in prison all eating the same meals over years and some end up overweight or obese.
what? Prisons have commissary to buy snacks and more food.
yes but you don't get enough to just pig out all the time.
>yes but you don't get enough to just pig out all the time
Not all inmates eat the same amount of food. Some eat less
I doubt that. They have to control food costs so they will be stingy as it is with how much food inmates get for their meals. I promise they aren't giving so much that some people are gonna be too full to finish all that is available.
Pretty sure the commissary also sells roids and drugs too because there's no illegal trade in there...
Not sure where you're going with the prison example. It doesn't account for calories out even if everyone eats the exact same diet.
Because people are being disingenuous and misconstruing the arguments of CICO proponents. They think that just because you *could* eat only twinkies and lose weight that therefore all CICO people are just eating twinkies and cakes and pastries because it's within our caloric needs for the day. When in reality we're still eating a balanced clean diet of homemade food with the occasional treat and don't get worked up over it.
CICO is bullshit.
The answer is probably because you lose some macros with liquid foods
It's hormones.
Yeah yeah that's obvious. Hence why bodybuilders can lose weight faster than normal humans.
However this doesn't invalidate CICO
It invalidates CICO.
How so?
Which is less fattening?
Cocaine
Uh bro, why did the very low carbohydrate group lose more Lean mass?
"Lean mass" includes water.
They ate more calories and lost more body fat. Totally disproving CICO.
>"Lean mass" includes water.
lmao cope. It doesn't.
Doubtful. It looks like water weight was accounted for. I lose 10lbs of water weight in just the first week of any cut. Second, every group in the screenshot you posted is in a caloric deficit.... and they all lost weight.
>Doubtful. It looks like water weight was accounted for. I lose 10lbs of water weight in just the first week of any cut. Second, every group in the screenshot you posted is in a caloric deficit.... and they all lost weight.
have you actually read the study? they used DEXA scan to measure the changes. Here is what DEXA actually measures: "DEXA measures bone mass (bone mineral content), fat mass and “lean mass”. Lean mass is everything that is not body fat or bone and therefore includes, muscle, organs, skin, connective tissue etc … and water". So yes it includes water loss which certainly will mean more water weight loss. How do you even know how much water you lose when you cut? just from experience and other studies it's very easy to tell that heavy reduction of carb intake will make you dump more water initially easily to the tune of 3kgs and more. just looking at the study its pretty obvious that the low carb group had a far larger body fat loss in the same time frame, despite the low carb group consuming more calories per day: "Dietary energy was restricted, but was slightly higher during the VLCK (1855 kcal/day) compared to the LF (1562 kcal/day) diet for men."
I’m at a point where I truly believe the anti-CICO posters are paid shills by some shredded sociopath who doesn’t wants people to know that CiCO works and to constantly confuse people about how getting shredded works so he can keep selling his meme diet books, all while behind the scenes he’s tracking calories and eating everything (as any one with more than 2 brain cells does)
It’s actually a good grift. I’m shredded and I do track my calories everyday and eat everything, nothing is off limits. Even I am considering taking some professional photos and then grifting some meme diet.
I’ve discovered that people would rather buy a $99 e-book that says a bunch of bullshit telling them to only eat egg whites and carrots and flail it’s the secret to being shredded, and people would rather buy those grifter meme diet e-books instead of just be told to track calories and eat less calories lmao
Post body.
Post a picture of your physique
Because they say stupid shit like "if you ate 2000 cals of oreos instead of steak you'd get fatter!"
It's a guideline for dieting on a balanced diet
Because -someone- in the conversation is stupid.
Calories are measured by TORCHING FOOD AND SEEING HOW MUCH FIRE IT PRODUCES. It doesn't accurately assess how (you) absorb it, its just a reasonably decent estimate.
You pair it with one or two simple concepts like how different macros are processed or insulin response, and suddenly its 99% reliable and accurate.
But people are stupid and refuse to see it that way, CICO has to be either perfect all by itself or its worthless, which is why you're constantly reading about keto or le 6 donuts for lunch is akshually healthy, and other logical abominations.
CICO as a whole is a dumb as frick system for idiots that can't grasp simply eating a little less than you're used to, because they lack any discipline and willpower, and entirely expect themselves to "unconsciously" eat more in other meals to make up for the lighter ones.
>simply eating a little less than you're used to
This isn't true. You simply eat more crunchy water instead of cheesey potatoes.
>you don't eat less of your highly caloric/high insulin response foods, you swap them with less caloric/lower insulin response foods!
My brother, those are the same thing.
These people don't need to worry about micronutrients or fiber when they can barely shed a few pounds of fat without some strict diet plan.
>My brother, those are the same thing.
Are you claiming there aren't foods that make you feel fuller?
>simply eating a little less than you're used to,
This is just cico without counting the calories.
Eating only donuts the whole day but staying 500cal under maintenance is CICO.
Maintaining your current diet in lower portions isn't.
CICO applies to both.
It’s not that they think it’s bullshit. It’s rather that they think it’s overly reductive and ineffective advice, which is true. When people say “calories in, calories out” they’re implying that if you simply eat less and move more that you will lose fat, and that’s just simply not true in all cases. Neither is it necessarily good advice in cases where it is true.
I honestly do not know. It’s crazy how moronic people are.