Cico is probably the most retarded oversimplification in fitness Posted on February 20, 2023 by Anonymous Cico is probably the most retarded oversimplification in fitness
Please explain then why the human body is the one system in the universe that doesn't obey the first law of thermodynamics
>t knows nothing about physics but loves spouting out the thermodynamics phrase as if they have any idea how it works
Retards think CICO means ignore macros. Y'all are actually stupid.
CICO doesn't have macros in its abbreviation dumbass
how do macroes affect weight? does conversion efficiency change with macro proportions?
CICO is true no matter what however it’s optimized for fat people who need to lose weight really quickly because they have so much excess fat in comparison to little muscle tissue
Once that ratio of fat to muscle becomes closer the macro requirements change because your body realize it’s fat storages are no longer plentiful so it switches to muscle tissue and you need to feed them to prevent excess breakdown
Anti CICO arguments are all strawmen and don’t explain how if you take 100 people and put them at a caloric deficit why they all will lose weight 100% if they stick to it
the only macro you need to track is protein. simple as
You playing mind-reader and resorting to an adhom instead of dealing with the argument directly. He wins. You lose.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed...you fucking retard. I didn't have to look it up but...did you forget the internet exists or something? Some people use it as efficiently as they can by referencing multiple sources, and not just on page 1-3 of fucking google. There are entire curriculums online for free, and even entire college classes on youtube. kys
You need be over 18 to post here
Ei = Ef
Go back reddit gay
Which surprisingly are absent from a combustion engine
Crazy how things that take fuel can be different from one another
Biochemistry is based on chemistry, which means any biochemical process would still follow laws of chemistry/physics.
Hormones doesn't stop the conservation of mass/energy. They literally just signal for the body to stop/start certain
Literally what are you talking about.
youre a fucking subhuman retard painful gay with no reading comprehension or the capacity to have thoughts of your own
They do stop you from being active and full of energy. You body can control the amount of energy ut can spend. Your body can use muscles and many other tissues as fuel.
On top of that's there is a microbiome, that acts differently depending on the food you consume, the amount of d3 yiu produce/supplement. Twins can have drastically different outcome of body weight depending on their microbiome. And having microbiome transplanted from a fatty to a skinny twin, will make him also fatty.
And at the end of the day, you feel insanely hungry, if you are deficinet in any specific micronutrients like magnesium.
P.s.: nicrobes in your gut also consume lots of energy and convert lots of stuff into vitamins. You will get only short chain fatty acids from all the fructoze and fuber you consume that have significantly less calories than initial carbs and fiber. They are also anti inflammatory, while inflamation lead to fat storage.
IT JUST DOESN'T OKAY
It follows it, that's not the issue. Saying "just eat less" it's like saying "just quit smoking" to an addict. Get it now?
"People" being incapable of following simple instructions is a different issue.
>Saying "just eat less" it's like saying "just quit smoking" to an addict
>just tell alcoholics to drink less
fuckin hell disband alcoholics anonymous ive solved the cased
if they don't succeed that's their own failure, doesn't make the advice not sound
moron what makes you think people who are disgusted by coping fatties are going to suddenly sympathize with junkies lol
There is no point in reasoning with lunatics. They delude themselves to shield them from responsibility and consequence. Every single cico-denier argument is a lightning rod for not having to disprove the first law of thermodynamics.
Sure, those can be reasons for a person self-sabotage and overeat. All distractions from the fundamental premise that any organism must consume more calories than it expends in order to increase in mass.
Only if you can explain why macros don't matter.
Because its impossible to know the exact calories in and exact calories out, and most of dieting is dealing with hunger which has very little to do with calories for fatties, whom eat thousands of excess calories yet still feel hunger.
You may go back to plebbit now. Be sure to warn all of your gay friends there that I called you a moron and this place is scary and racist.
You don’t need to know the exact number of calories as long as you establish a baseline and use consistent measuring methods for exercise and food consumption.
no shit retard, and that would mean CICO is a retarded oversimplification just as OP said.
>Because its impossible to know the exact calories in and exact calories out,
You don't need to be autistically exact, you just need to be close, and be able to adjust.
>am I losing weight?
>yes, continue as id
>no, eat less
Just because you can’t measure it easily doesn’t invalidate thermodynamics.
Practical weight loss can be much more complex.
>Practical weight loss can be much more complex.
Then stop going >muh thermodynamics every time someone asks for advice on weight loss.
It's also a human body which relies of hormones for communication.
The human body does different things with different nutrients.
Sugar goes straight to the lipid cells which then grow too big and then start damaging you from the inside.
CICO is only a third of the story of fitness and nutrition.
>Sugar goes straight to the lipid cells
Try again fattie.
Sugar gets converted to GLYCOGEN, and your body can store multiple pounds of this stuff before sugar gets converted to fat.
When sugar and fat are eaten together in a caloric excess, the sugar is stored as glycogen and the fat is stored as fat.
Hence the saying: "fat makes you fat".
and "carbs make you gain glycogen and water weight".
impressive. very nice. now let's see animal fats vs pufas and see what the real correlation is.
his brain short circuited
The absolute cope of these replies, seethe harder you coping gays, if you fatties had half an ounce of control you would be in shape from cico
It's gonna blow your mind the day you learn that cars use more or less fuel to travel the same distance based on a bunch of other factors.
>UUUHHH SWEETIE HOW CAN MILEAGE VARY WHEN THERMODYNAMICS ARE A THING?????
Cars are also subject to cico. A varied part of the co goes to displacing air, generating heat through friction, and so on
true and on top of this cars don't diet, they don't have urges and hormones, and they can't cannibalize the materials in their tires to make oil for their pistons. CICO fags are just fatties that want to mathematically justify their Twinkie obsession and soda addiction.
Works on my machine lol
>stage 3 cope, stealing homosexual photos from /cbt/ to justify a twinkie diet
>implying humans (by extent, bodies) are linear systems
cico works, as long as your hormones are in normal parameters
Body mass is governed by cico, but body composition is affected by food quality and genetics.
kek all these seething replies to what is essentially basic fitness knowledge.
Nufit/zoomers are so fucked
it obeys them, but the body can modulate its energy expenditure.
depending on the macros youre giving it, it could choose to raise or lower metabolism, to use fat storage or to add to it. CICO doesnt show the full picture because metabolism is adaptive.
That law applies to a closed system, which the body is not. You have no idea what calories your body is actually digesting, you have no idea how the energy is being expended, you have no idea how efficiently the body is able to use energy, it's all pure guesswork. Midwits LOVE cico because it is reduces an extremely complex subject into a simple equation even a child can understand. Too bad it's bullshit. Hormones are far more impactful on body composition than CICO and anyone who has done roids can attest to this. Brb getting shredded eating whatever I want. Brb getting fatter off cycle no matter how I diet. Hormones are everything and by extension food quality is more important than tracking 3 macronutrients.
>Hormones are far more impactful on body composition than CICO and anyone who has done roids can attest to this.
Your copy pasta is sneakily changing the goalposts. Noone is saying that hormones aren't important for body composition, but roids or no roids, you need to eat enough of the right foods to grow your muscles.
You can blast literal grams of gear and if you're only eating 1500kcal daily, you might improve your COMPOSITION ie your ratio of lean mass to fat, but you're not going to gain weight, you're just going to be a shredded skinny dude.
Likewise you can blast insane, horse-killing amounts of steroids, and if your diet a 5000kcal dirty bulk, you are going to grow your muscle AND your fat.
None of that applies to CICO. You're actually crying about TDEE calculators, which are of course just an estimate to start at.
Fucking retard lmao.
latinas get fat after 25 because their metabolisms become more efficient, especially after having kids, so they have to train themselves to eat less than what they did at age 19 or they'll get fat.
100 calories in isn't 100 calories out for everyone due to the varying efficiencies of our metabolisms. But this isn't an excuse to be a fatass, it's just something people need to be aware of, as well as how their body absorbs carbs, fats, and protein. People need to know that people of different races as well as people in general need different ratios of macros.
>100 calories in isn't 100 calories out for everyone
Nobody is saying this you stupid cunt.
CICO means that the difference between calories in and calories out results in either loss or gain of mass.
How you get there is not the concern of CICO.
Ok I thought that was what the OP was trying to say but yeah that's pretty obvious and I don't know why anyone would disagree with that.
>100 calories in isn't 100 calories out for everyone due to the varying efficiencies of our metabolisms
Lmfao. You're so fucking dumb. You don't even understand what CICO means. Calories In = calories you ate. Calories Out = calories you burned. If CI > CO then you gain weight. If CI < CO then you lose weight.
The end. Dumbfuck.
you’re drawing arrow from CO to CI and call others dumb lmao cicotard
Those are greater than and less than symbols you 85 IQ shitstain.
>anti cico subhuman can't even read
>CICO cultist replies immediately after anyone dares to criticise their cult
holy shit get a life you're worse than scientologists
Please explain why CICO retards think that the human body always uses 100% of the chemical energy in food. Explain why people with dysentery are malnourished even when they eat enough calories. Tell me about what the human body is doing with the undigested fats and proteins human feces. The mere existence of diabetes should be enough to debunk this shit. You are the ultimate Dunning-Krueger midwits. Using calories as a unit of measure at all is pants on head retarded https://alexaanswers.amazon.com/question/3LrpFs1M1fCTv8NjgRhexY and accurate calorie calorie information is not even available.
If you happen to be successful doing CICO good for you, but please the fuck up while the rest of us are working on our nutrition and go harass the HAES retards instead.
>go harass the HAES retards instead.
But you are the HAES retards... Bro... do you really not know what side you're on?
Tell me how many calories are in 100 grams of chicken thigh you mouth breathing retards.
>There are 178 calories in 100 grams of Chicken Dark Meat (Roasting, Cooked, Roasted). * The % Daily Value (DV) tells you how much a nutrient in a serving of food contributes to a daily diet.
These three databases say that you're wrong.
Knew it. Exactly what I said you would do. So predictable.
why do you insist on getting btfo so much?
No, because you think you're about to make some "gotcha" argument and completely own us, even though you've got nothing and your point will be shit and nonsensical. I imagine your point will basically be
>Grr, the amount of calories aren't always exact, grr fluctuations, blablabla, etc.
Essentially shit that still doesn't disprove CICO, but nice attempt.
No, you just don't know how to come up with good analogies. Try harder, dickhead.
I knew it was you hahahha i called it, the same retarded anger that runs in endless circles
Dude, everyone posts that fucking image. I'm not the guy you're thinking of, not that you're going to believe me, and not that I even care.
Hahahahha i fucking knew it, im not running in loops with you this time buddy ill see you in a week when i make a similar thread and you blow it up again
Aww, shucks. Alright, I admit it! You found me out. I AM that guy. I don't know what I was trying to accomplish by lying about it. I just can't hide behind this facade anymore...
121 calories according to this retard's preferred database
, 207 calories according to this database https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/chicken-thigh-skin-not-eaten?portionid=50377&portionamount=100.000 and you retards think I'M the one getting BTFO'ed? Your entire position depends on adding up the exact amount of energy in food and subtracting the exact amount of energy expended by the body, but the database estimates of the calories in food are wildly inaccurate, but you still think you know better than people like Stan Ekberg that have medical degrees and back up their claims with published studies. I'll bet you think the calories burned number on cardio machines is accurate too.
Based, Hello fellow health champion
Chicken thigh can have highly variable amounts of fat, when raw due to feeding differences for the chicken, and cooked due to different cooking methods. You've picked one of the most variable and hard to calculate food types. Yes, there is some uncertainty, but even cherry picking like that you've only got an 80kcal difference, which is statistical noise.
When you're cutting for weight loss you're aiming for around a 500kcal deficit or more. If your diet contains a lot of difficult to calculate foods like chicken thigh then you'll need to experiment a little bit more to find the right amount of food, so what?
The highest estimate is almost twice as high as the lowest estimate. If you believe that it's okay to be off by 70% why are you advocating for CICO at all? Don't act like this is unique to chicken thigh either.
You're not counting, you're guessing. You're clueless about the nutritional value of food beyond what Myfitnesspal tells you is the calorie count. That puts you ahead of the HAES goyslop eaters, but behind everyone else.
>You could at the very least choose a better example than chicken, which is pretty much THE meat people eat to get protein while staying low on calories.
That's an argument FOR using chicken, you retard. Weight loss foods like chicken are the MOST important to get right when you're shilling CICO as the best weight loss method. Shit like pizza, ice cream, and that disgusting Oreo milkshake are the ones that don't matter because no one who's trying to lose weight will be eating them.
You're asking how much calories are in chicken, getting an answer, and still denying the basic reality that fat loss is a function of CICO. Chicken is low cal. End of
If you're attempting a monstrous cut, sure. It has plenty of protein too.
>n-nooo thermic effect of food isn't real nooo
>This is often termed the thermic effect of food (TEF). Although not all sources agree on the exact figures, it is clear that protein has a much higher thermic effect (20-30%) compared to carbs (5-10%) and fat (0-3%)
>The number of calories in chicken is somewhere between 121 calories and 207 calories per 100 grams
>The price of gas is somewhere between $1.21 and $2.07 per liter
>The amount of money in your account is somewhere between $121 and $207
Right on cue. If the problem was me then I would continue to not loose weight when I started ignoring roid trannies, ditched CICO, and started getting advice from people like Dr. Ekberg and Mark Sisson that actually know what they're talking about.
So that's what this is really all about, huh? You can't take responsibility for your own actions. Almost 24 hours and 230+ posts in, just to come to the conclusion that you're a pathetic loser who refuses to take accountability for his own shitty choices. Pathetic... Really pathetic, dude.
Strange and muddled take. Do you by chance count cans for a living? If not you should. Not him by the way.
>Lost weight using different method
>Somehow this makes me a pathetic loser who refuses to take accountability for his own shitty choices
The roids are rotting your brain.
He knows more about the human body than you ever will.
This guy eats lots of fruit (sugar) every day and looks way better than "Doctor" Ekfag.
Isn't he a chiropractor?
Why do idiots like you fall for these fake doctors?
Apples to oranges. I don't know if you think you're making a point with these bad faith retard-tier arguments but you definitely are making yourself look like an idiot if that's your goal
That wasn't even meant to be an argument, you brain rotted roid chud, I was venting.
then why even reply to me, it's clearly formatted to attempt to compare calorie counts to money which is retarded because money isn't measured with a bomb calorimeter
The context of the thread is "CICO bad". Thus it follows logically that I would answer a question about the healthiness of chicken in a calorie-focused way. You're being deliberately obtuse as if that's a gotcha or does anything besides make you look dumb
I replied to the wrong post. The money analogy was an argument because it shows how fundamentally flawed the calorie counting method is. You can't accurately track calories in food or expended by exercise the way that CICO shills always claim you can. The same 100g of chicken has about 70% more calories according to one database compared to the other; someone following your advice could be over or under their daily calorie goal by hundreds, or thousands off of a weekly goal if they eat chicken every day. I don't even have to bring up factors like satiety, glycemic load, gut biome, or insulin sensitivity to show that CICO is a garbage methodology that only happens to work for some people.
CICO is by far the most common weight loss method and the fail rate on diets is estimated to be as high as 95%; that's not a coincidence. The time that people waste looking up numbers could be spent learning to cook, fermenting food for gut health, or meditating to reduce cortisol. Eat less move more is the first thing that literally everyone tries and fails at, so if you can't offer any information or advice beyond that you're no more useful than the HAES retards.
>someone following your advice could be over or under their daily calorie goal by hundreds
No, they couldn't. See
That post you're rebutting with argues that close enough is good enough, which is for all practical purposes is the opposite of CICO. Same as this clown
. All but the very stupidest meme diets will reduce calories compared to the standard Western goyslop diet.
>It doesn't matter how far you're off by, only whether you're off by the same amount
If I plan out 1500 calories a day, with 400 coming from chicken I would eat 70% more chicken using one of the databases I've been linking compared to the other. How is it that your NPC brain can't see the problem with that?
>That post you're rebutting with argues that close enough is good enough
Yes, and it is. Why do you have this super autistic mindset of "CICO HAS TO WORK IN THIS VERY SPECIFIC AND PERFECTLY EXACT WAY AT ALL TIMES OR ELSE IT'S WRONG!"?
>If I plan out 1500 calories a day, with 400 coming from chicken I would eat 70% more chicken using one of the databases I've been linking compared to the other.
So? What's the issue? As long as you're still in a deficit (which you will be), you'll be fine. Also, just use a little fucking discretion and discernment to find the answer. If one database says it's 200kcal and another says it's 150kcal, then just assume that it's likely somewhere in the middle, you fuckwit. Why does everything have to be spelled out to you like a fucking child?
>Yes, and it is. Why do you have this super autistic mindset of "CICO HAS TO WORK IN THIS VERY SPECIFIC AND PERFECTLY EXACT WAY AT ALL TIMES OR ELSE IT'S WRONG!"?
Because you autistic retards always claim that it does work in that perfect exact way when you're calling me a fat, lazy slob. You can't have it both ways.
>So? What's the issue? As long as you're still in a deficit (which you will be), you'll be fine
Not if the database I'm using is UNDERSTATING the real number. Which we don't know, because there's no consensus on what the real number is. By your own logic the method that you shove on to everyone else won't work because there's no way to tell whether we're actually doing it right without accurate, reliable numbers.
>Not if the database I'm using is UNDERSTATING the real number. Which we don't know, because there's no consensus on what the real number is. By your own logic the method that you shove on to everyone else won't work because there's no way to tell whether we're actually doing it right without accurate, reliable numbers.
Empirical testing. Use their numbers for two weeks. If your weight went down, you're good. If it stayed the same or went up, eat less.
That's called an anecdote, not an empirical test, and by the same logic I've already posted a more effective method ITT
and I guess I'll put another one in the image field (dropped about 20 pounds while putting on some muscle following this guy's advice and not counting or logging calories).
>That's called an anecdote, not an empirical test,
>based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
it is, by definition, empirical if you do it that way
>Because you autistic retards always claim that it does work in that perfect exact way when you're calling me a fat, lazy slob. You can't have it both ways.
No, we don't, fuckhead. Only you do, and that's what we've been trying to explain to you for the past 500 hours, but you just won't get it through your thick fucking skull!
>By your own logic the method that you shove on to everyone else won't work because there's no way to tell whether we're actually doing it right without accurate, reliable numbers.
God, you're an idiot.
-Figure out your TDEE
-If weight stays the same or increases on scale, eat less food
Not exactly a complex system to figure out, now, is it? Seriously, bro, why do you need obvious shit explained to you over and over again? Why can't you just figure out these obvious solutions and conclusions on your own? Why are you incapable of filling in the blanks? Why doesn't your brain function correctly?
>No, we don't, fuckhead
Yes. You do. You're doing it in this exact god damn post. Are you a fucking chat bot that doesn't understand the words you're vomiting out to the world or are terminally autistic and addicted to (you)s? This board really is the new /LULZ/.
Stop with the projection, dude. Stop being a retard.
It doesn't matter if it's exactly 1000kcal or not, tard-for-brains. It will still be in that general range, and will be way more than enough to undoubtably and unquestionably be at a deficit, and enough of one there's no chance of somehow being at maintenance calories or a surplus. Stop with the idiocy.
Bro, this entire thread has just been you going "I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW SOMETHING WORKS, THEREFORE IT'S WRONG!" Just shut the fuck up already. Anyway. I've won this argument over and over again, and now I'm going to bed. Seethe harder over the fact that you'll never be right and will always be a retarded gay. have a nice day, dickhead!
Doesn't matter which database they follow as long as they use the same method to calculate CICO every week. If you’re gaining weight and calculating a calorie deficit, then you simply cut more from your diet. It’s really not that difficult. The reason most people in this country are obese is because they consume too many calories. Satiety and microbiome aren’t going to do shit if you’re shoving 4000kcal down your throat every day.
If you want to see what works, then look at what methodology is used by people who diet professionally: body builders and wrestlers. All of them use CICO to manage their weight.
Bodybuilders are on steroids, their body functions completely different from a normal human. The fact that you would even bring them up shows that you are clueless about physical health. Wrestlers are a slightly better argument, but the successful ones aren't just eating random garbage and tracking the calories in it. They're young men, eating the same food that the Ekbergs of the world would recommend and working out for hours every day, which is not an option for most people. Most of the weight they actually drop for competitions is intentional dehydration, and spitting in a gatorade bottle all day doesn't reduce body fat.
>It isn't flawed beyond usefulness, unless it needs to be an absolutely perfect system in order to please you
That's what CICO shills always claim it is.
> it's not always exact but 99% of the time it's good enough to lose weight with
The obesity rate in Western countries would not be pushing 40% if it was. The only other pseudo scientific health advice with such fervent support and failure rate this catastrophic is "gender affirming care." You are actively making people fatter with your advice.
>That's what CICO shills always claim it is.
Bold claim, reeks of strawman
>The obesity rate in Western countries would not be pushing 40% if it was.
The obesity rate in the West is due to unlimited access to cheap, high-calorie food combined with a lazy, sedentary population. It's not that they're unable to lose weight, it's that they don't even try. You're attempting to assign blame for obesity to ANYTHING except stuffing your face like a pig. It's time to accept personal responsibility for your appearance and stop the cope.
>The obesity rate in the West is due to unlimited access to cheap, high-calorie food combined with a lazy, sedentary population
If you actually believed that you would be telling people to cook their own food and eat vegetables like Cavaliere and Eckhart, but you don't because you're a retarded roid trannie that inhales goyslop and shoots hormones into your ass
>You're attempting to assign blame for obesity to ANYTHING except stuffing your face like a pig
Literally every single thing that I've pushed for ITT revolves around eating healthier food.
>It's time to accept personal responsibility for your appearance and stop the cope.
You're projecting the guilt and inferiority you feel for roiding onto people that lift, run, and diet for health reasons. You're the biggest crab in the bucket pulling down others that are actually working hard to improve themselves. You'll die in your 30s from steroid complications without accomplishing anything.
>but you don't because you're a retarded roid trannie that inhales goyslop and shoots hormones into your ass
Are you capable of anything other than strawman arguments
>Literally every single thing that I've pushed for ITT revolves around eating healthier food.
Except you plug your ears whenever anyone attempts to explain to you the simple reality behind weight loss
>You're projecting the guilt and inferiority you feel for roiding
There's that strawman again
>You're the biggest crab in the bucket pulling down others that are actually working hard to improve themselves.
Lol, this from the guy repeating the HAES meme that 95% of diets fail. That's funny.
>You'll die in your 30s from steroid complications without accomplishing anything.
Wishful thinking on your part. I'll outlive you because I can maintain a healthy weight thanks to my solid grasp of nutritional fundamentals like CICO, unlike you who will die fat
>Doesn't even deny the steroid abuse
Enjoy being another Zyzz, Ronnie Coleman, or Rich Pianna. Minus the fame and likable personality.
>NOOO YOU ARE MY STRAWMAN NOOOO
Cope. I accept your concession
>fundamentally flawed the calorie counting method is
It isn't flawed beyond usefulness, unless it needs to be an absolutely perfect system in order to please you. As another anon said, it's not always exact but 99% of the time it's good enough to lose weight with. If you're close enough to your calorie limit that the margin of error is seriously affecting your weight loss, that's a you problem.
functionally irrelevant unless you're a diabetic, has nothing to do with weight loss
if anything having a shitty gut biome is beneficial to weight loss as you become unable to break down some foods and absorb them as nutrients
>CICO is a garbage methodology that only happens to work for some people
Except that's fundamentally wrong, you fucking idiot. CICO isn't a "methodology". It's physical reality. What do you think fat is? Where do you think that energy comes from? If the body requires more energy than is being absorbed from your diet, it will use stored energy to make up the difference. There's no "muh genetics" that make you able to manifest energy out of nowhere, it just doesn't happen. Certain diets focus on the CICO aspect, but EVERY diet that works has CICO at its core.
>fail rate on diets
Fatty cope, this is exclusively a willpower issue.
>Eat less move more is the first thing that literally everyone tries and fails at,
>so if you can't offer any information or advice beyond that you're no more useful than the HAES retards
>what's 2+2? and don't tell me 4.
>The same 100g of chicken has about 70% more calories according to one database compared to the other;
As long as you use the same calorie references, same food scale, and same scale for yourself it doesn't matter. I ate X amount of Y calorie food and my weight is Z. I ate 0.9X amount of Y calorie food and my weight is less than Z. Everything doesn't have to be exact; it's about building a system that, over time, slowly and consistently loses weight.
You're the retard who thinks that calories should be counted by googling random versions of similar foodstuffs rather than using the nutrition info on the food you've actually bought
No, failing to understand that the numbers should be the same means you're retarded. The implication that I should be buying premade goyslop full of sugar and PUFAs so that I can read the nutrition label is doubly retarded.
Why should the numbers be the same? Every cut of chicken thigh is going to have different amounts of fat and meat, which is going to change the calorie value. It is an inherently highly variable foodstuff. You've used it as a cherry picked example BECAUSE it can vary a lot. You don't have to know your calorie intake to a 0.1% error margin for the principles of CICO to work.
You aim for a 500-750kcal deficit for weight loss, as this gives enough of a margin of error that highly variable foods can be accounted for.
By your own argument, it is the macronutrient and micronutrient profile of food that matters, not the calories, well your chicken thigh might be 5% fat or 12% fat. yUo cAnT kNoW eXaCtLy wHaT iT iS
It's only a problem if I'm following your retarded advice and counting calories to lose weight. If I'm loading up on vegetables, fixing my gut, lowering cortisol, and cutting the goyslop I don't need to whether my chicken thighs have 121 or 207 calories.
>You've used it as a cherry picked example BECAUSE it can vary a lot.
I used it because it's one of the most commonly eaten weight loss foods you autistic, inbred, mouth breathing roid trannie
>numbers should be the same means you're retarded
>a factory farmed Cornish Cross chicken raised on a diet of grain should have the EXACT same body composition and fatty acid profile, and therefore calories per 100g, as an heirloom, free-range Rhode Island Red
IDK bro so you're mad that not all chickens are carbon-copy clones of each other?
You could at the very least choose a better example than chicken, which is pretty much THE meat people eat to get protein while staying low on calories.
>nooo muh inconsistency!
what is the margin of error?
eat less tubby
Oh no! A whole extra 100 calories, whatever will I do?! Oh, I'll still be at a deficit anyway, so it doesn't even matter. Plus, I could just go on a 20 minute walk to burn it off, if I wanted to. Problem solved. You're really not making a good case, bro. Besides, my personal TDEE is close to 3,000 calories. Do you really think a measly 100 calories is even gonna make a fucking dent in that? No, it isn't. It's not something I need to concern myself with. You're freaking out over nothing.
>One 100g serving of chicken thigh is the only thing I will eat today
By CICO logic I could be getting all my calories from 10 chicken thighs
>By CICO logic I could be getting all my calories from 10 chicken thighs
Yeah... because you could... That's actually a thing you could do. Exactly how retarded are you that you don't understand this?
It's dumb because it leads you to correct conclusions? Dude, are you okay? I think getting BTFO'd this whole thread is messing with your brain. You might wanna take a break, bro.
>attack anyone who tries your method and doesn't get results.
If you didn't get results, then you obviously weren't doing it right... duh. If your goal was to lose weight, but you ended up gaining it, it's because you were in a caloric surplus. It's entriely your fault. Why are you looking for something else to blame when it's entirely on you?
>Your entire position depends on adding up the exact amount of energy in food and subtracting the exact amount of energy expended by the body
No, it doesn't have to be exact at all. It only has to be close enough. It obviously can't be 100% perfectly exact every single time. But what you can guarantee is that it will be close enough. And that's good enough and succesfully works for people. If you're trying for a deficit of 500kcal, but your actual deficit only ends up being 440kcal, then it's still perfectly fine, since you're still in a deficit. Why don't you understand this?
That's not what you claim. You always go >muh thermodynamics >muh math until you get backed into a corner like this. "Close enough" is exactly what you always argue against. You constantly shit on advice like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ0QXCTqjUs and insist on logging every spoon of food (don't forget to weigh it!) and every minute of physical activity and attack anyone who tries your method and doesn't get results.
this is literally the same thinking as HAES retards
>Please explain why CICO retards think that the human body always uses 100% of the chemical energy in food.
Your body doesn't use 100% of the chemical energy in the food you eat. It does however, use more than zero, meaning if you want to lose weight, you should eat less food, and if you want to gain weight you should eat more food.
>satan trips from a retard keto poster
>fpbp literally BTFO's fatso OP
>bakers dozen of lardasses reply
lmao at these >people. any ketoschizo thread is immediately a fph thread.
where are the fat holocaust victims?
Shut the fuck up rabbi
I agree but it's not like it doesn't work
Then how come it works?
anti cico fags be like
>how come when I eat 1800 calories of cooking oil each day I feel like shit but when I eat 1800 calories of other foods I feel fine??
You are a fucking retard. CICO works. Obviously you'll be healthier and feel better if you eat a variety of healthy well prepared foods than if you eat slop, but the principle is the same. Expend more calories than you consume and you WILL lose weight. End of story. Everything else is fat retard cope, like this thread.
But 1800 calories of pure sugar will be processes different from 1800 calories of chicken thighs so therefore calories don't count
Checkmate anon, now I can go to the buffet every day
What are you putting on your plate though, strawman-chan?
what else determines weight then?
CICO is literally science.
Of course foods with protein and fiber are more satiating though at lower calories.
>CICO is literally science.
CICO is just a proxy for materials-in-materials-out. You see, the catabolic metabolism consists of a series of combustion reactions (any reaction with oxygen is combustion) and these reactions release heat proportion to the amount of material used in the reaction. Likewise, the possible amount of heat produce by burning the materials in a piece of food produce a similar amount of heat. So it's easier to calculate the amount of calories in total you produce per day as part of your metabolism than it is to calculate the exact among of every possible combination of different types of carbs, proteins, fats, etc. you need per day for you catabolic metabolism. The directly proportional nature of material to heat produced makes calories a good proxy.
Underrated post anon. I will save this and pasta anytime I see an anti-cico moron from now on
Ok post, but
>(any reaction with oxygen is combustion)
Nope. There are plenty of reactions with oxygen that don't count as combustion (you can have a compound react partially with oxygen and get aldehydes or ketones, for example. That is oxidation, but not combustion). It's combustion only if it's fast, if it produces heat and if it results in the destruction of the original molecule.
>lose weight if I want
>gain weight if I want
what are you getting confused about?
all fat is weight, not all weight is fat
Yes and for 90% of people following cico will work perfectly fine for losing or gaining weight. Very few people engage in the types of lifestyles that require micromanaging macro and micro nutrient intake, and those that do know they need to have a specific diet to obtain their goals.
This is why you LIFT when you're cutting, atleast a couple times a week. You lose mostly fat and retain most of the muscle you gained on your "bulk". Jesus fucking christ, you zoomers act as if this shit hasnt been common knowledge for a while now.
Bulking is meaningless. You're just adding extra steps.
So? Who cares if it's "oversimplified"? Why is CICO the one thing people always choose to be autistically pedantic about? Seriously, it's as annoying as those fucking retards who feel the need to go "um, ackshually, you mean fat loss" when you say "weight loss", when it's tacitly understood by literally everyone that when someone says "losing weight" they obviously mean "losing fat", because who the fuck would ever mean anything other than that in that context? Just shut the fuck up and stop being pedantic little gays with your unnecessary technicalities! You know what we fucking mean, so stop being autistic about it! Jesus fucking Christ.
The problem is that CICO doesn't really say anything and it doesn't address hormone issues people may have from a lifetime of eating goyslop. Technically you could lose weight if you only at 500 calories of sugar a day, but does is that something someone should ever do?
>Technically you could lose weight if you only at 500 calories of sugar a day, but does is that something someone should ever do?
No one is telling anyone to do that, you moron
CICO simply means you can't stuff your face with 4,000 calories a day with zero exercise and pretend your diet is healthy and not why you're fat because some of your packaged food says "organic" on it
Just because CICO doesn't encompass every single aspect of healthy dieting doesn't mean it's not a correct and valid rule. Of course the type and quality of the food matter, but that is not the concern of the rule. The rule is about how the amount of weight gained is dependent on the amount of calories consumed. You can't just shove every single aspect of the human metabolism in a single rule, it would be a few pages long and nobody would read it.
People who complain about CICO are all a bunch of lazy coping fatties who are upset that weight loss doesn't come to them in one single neatly wrapped package like their burgers.
>The problem is that CICO doesn't really say anything and it doesn't address hormone issues people may have from a lifetime of eating goyslop
Because it doesn't fucking have to. See what I mean about you fucks being unecessarily pedantic about this shit?
Then when someone gives an actual solution that helps people toward CICO, like keto, they get called ketoschizo and ketolard. This is what we are talking about when you CICOtards try to say we are being pedantic.
No, because we're not talking about specifically "people who struggle to make CICO work for them because they're fat fucks who can't stop eating", okay? We're not talking about that. We're solely talking about CICO on its own. Everything else is irrelevant. All that fundamentally matters in this discussion is that you eat less than your TDEE to lose weight and you eat above it to gain it. That's the only thing being discussed here. Literally nothing else. Just that. Nothing more. Again, I don't get this pedantic need to keep introducing outside variables that aren't part of what we're discussing. Why do you keep doing it?
Because you can't ignore the outside factors that affect CICO, you fucking idiot.
>My car is going through fuel really really fast.
>FIFO dude! That's all that matters.
>But what if there is a lea-
>FUEL IN FUEL OUT. SHUT UP.
Yes you fucking can, you fucking idiot. Your extreme example doesn't even make sense, you brainless fuckwit. If you have a TDEE of 2500 calories, and you only take in 1500 calories, you will then burn 1000 calories. That's literally all that matters. Nothing else. Stop being stupid and proving my point.
That's not how it works. It has literally never worked like that. Stop parroting incorrect shit that you've heard your favourite youtuber say. I've eaten nothing but carbs for the past 3 days at a deficit of 1000 calories, and I've lost around 700 grams of fat doing so. Stop being stupid. You don't know what you're talking about.
What you're not getting is that fatties will literally eat 1500 calories of oreos and not understand why their diets always fail. We're giving diet advice to FAT FUCKS! CICO WORKS IF YOU'RE NOT ALREADY A FAT RETARD FUCK! YOU ARE RETARDED! have a nice day, NOW!
No, it just fundamentally works, no matter what. If person has a TDEE of 3000 calories and they only eat 1500 calories worth of Oreos, and nothing else, they will burn 1500 calories worth of fat. We're arguing two different things here, buddy, and you don't seem to understand that. Like I said in this post
we're not talking about specifically "people who struggle to make CICO work for them because they're fat fucks who can't stop eating". We're solely talking about CICO on its own.
>unironically advocating the oreo example diet to fatties
lmfao you are what we laugh at btw. Listen bro, I hate fatties too, but you don't have to torture them with this troll tier advice.
He's not advocating it you disingenuous cunt, he's stating (correctly) that even a nutrient deficient diet will cause you to lose weight if it puts you below your TDEE
I'm literally not even advocating it, you braindead gay. I'm very obviously using it as a random example to prove my point. I'm not saying they SHOULD eat Oreos to lose weight, you fuckhead (which I knew someone would eventually try to make the argument that I was encouraging it, since you morons are so predictable), I'm saying that they COULD do it and it WOULD work. Do you not know the difference between the words "could" and "should". Are you really this dumb? Obviously no one SHOULD try to lose weight by eating nothing but Oreos, I'm merely pointing out that they COULD do it, retard. I can't believe I actually have explain something so basic to a grown adult. Holy fuck.
>'m saying that they COULD eat Oreos to lose weight
Kind of a dumb thing to say. Eating doesn't make you lose weight. Not eating makes you lose weight. So you should be saying "someone could be eating less than they usually do, and it could be all Oreos, and they would still lose weight."
I 100% understand what you're saying, I'm just saying that the way you phrase it is kind of bad.
Dude, come the fuck on. Did you really feel the need to "um, ackshually" me on THAT of all things? Also, there's nothing wrong with my phrasing. Stop being a pedantic retard. I hate that I have to keep using that word to describe you dumb fucks.
Wow you got really defensive. Chill out a little and take a deep breath anon.
Yeah, that stuff doesn't work on me. Try something else.
Do you think I'm debating you on something or do you think I just popped into the thread to make 1 post about how your phrasing is bad and am pointing out how you got really defensive really quickly?
Yawn. Try harder.
Are you a CICO person or anti-CICO person? I'm trying to figure out which side is the more autistic one and I don't want to read your entire post history to figure it out.
Getting mad because I'm not giving you the reaction you want, huh? Sad. Your not-so-sutble, deliberately inflammatory remarks aren't gonna work on me. Just accept your loss and move on, bro.
Can you please just answer the question lol I don't need any more of your displays.
Whoa! Settle down, fella. Take it easy. Don't want you working yourself up. Just calm down. Relax. You're not getting anything from me, so just sssshh. Okay? Good boy.
>Whoa! Settle down, fella. Take it easy. Don't want you working yourself up. Just calm down. Relax. You're not getting anything from me, so just sssshh. Okay? Good boy.
Alright, so you've got nothing left then? Cool. I don't need any more of your displays.
And CICO is to explain to the retards who eat 3000kcal of regular , normal, food why they aren't losing weight
>I don't understand! I cut out soda and junk food and I'm cooking all my own meals but I'm still getting fatter!
>have you tried eating less food?
>CICO IS A MYTH A CALORIE ISN'T A CALORIE THE RANDLE CYCLE LIPID PEROXIDATION GLYCOGEN DEPLETION INSULIN GHRELIN
>body cannibalizes muscle and organ tissues for missing compounds because of your meme sugar diet
>FDA approved diet btw, CICO bro
Your post has nothing to do with what I said.
If you eat a nutritionally complete diet, hitting all of the body's requirements for essential vitamins and minerals, you're going to gain weight regardless if you're in a calorie surplus
no shit, retard
your are a reductionist idiot oversimplifying diet to just energy, just as OP stated
The biggest problem with people on the internet is they can never admit they're wrong and you get fags like this
You were the retards in school that got butthurt because they didn't read the question on the test carefully and just assumed what the question was based on a cursory glance.
>You were the retards in school that got butthurt because they didn't read the question on the test carefully and just assumed what the question was based on a cursory glance.
>Projecting this hard
You do realize that's what YOU'RE doing, right?
the mental acuity of cicofags everyone
I had to bring it down to a level that you would understand. Sorry, I should have dumbed it down more for ya.
>no shit, retard
>your are a reductionist idiot oversimplifying diet to just energy, just as OP stated
Which part of my post about people eating a normal, healthy diet but eating TOO MUCH OF IT was reductionist?
Your counter to this is some bizarre non-sequitar that the only reason people overeat is because they're deficient in some nutrient or another.
The fact is that nutrient deficiency is vanishingly rare in the developed world and doesn't account for the rising obesity rates - deficiency was far more common in the past, before staple foods like bread, milk and cereals were fortified and enriched.
>he doesn't think the wester world is nutrient deficient because the governments said so
>dumping iron into bread is le good for diet!!! ty doctor shekelburg for your cheerios!!!
lol, lmao even
Fat people become nutrient deficient because of their junk food diet. They don't become fat because they are nutrient deficient.
>t. can't read
The irony is incredible
You are the dumbest piece of shit on internet, braindead and illiterate
>retarded non-sequitur poster assuming that CICO means "just eat sugar bro"
nobody thinks this but the strawman you're attacking
>logical implications of your theory is a straw man
back to int brainlet
i.e. you made it up, because arguing with a strawman is easier than getting btfo by facts
What is healthier, a chicken leg or a can of coke?
A chicken leg, as it has less calories than a can of coke. Additionally, the thermic effect of protein results in net less calories absorbed than sugar.
I understand that post was supposed to be a gotcha, so I'll just accept your concession.
>A chicken leg, as it has less calories than a can of coke
YOU LITERALLY CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP
>removes the skin to win an argument
You people are deranged
He lost the argument by saying that a chicken leg (of indeterminate size btw) was healthier than coke just because muh calories. Its time for him to go back.
Dude, you're trying to make this argument like as if you were ever discussing the nutritional value of food and it's importance, even though you weren't. If you would like to intrduce that new argument, you may, but don't pretend like it was ever part of any point you were making beforehand. Also, no one's going to deny the actual importance of the nutritional aspects of diet. But it's not what we're discussing. We're talking about CICO.
yeah and CICO is dumb because it leads you to conclusions like this
just reread this post and soak in how fucking stupid and retarded it is
>a chicken leg is healthier than a bottle of HFCS because of calories
>ignores the rest of the post
this thread is about cico not macros. if you need me to spell it out for you why chicken is healthier than coke you're ngmi
The rest of your post doesn't clarify the silly statement you made and apparently are now defending with the reasoning "duh it's obvious."
If it's so obvious and easy to explain how could you make such a stupid statement in the first place? lol
Also, you're acting like it's WHAT they're eating that's keeping them fat, when it's simply that they're eating 4000+ calories of food while only doing enough to burn off 2500 calories of it. It wouldn't matter if they ate healthy food if they're still eating 4000+ calories of it.
>what they're eating isn't make them fat
CICOtards, everyone. They're fat because they're always eating. They're always eating because they're always hungry. They're always hungry because their diet is devoid of nutrients their body needs. Your solution for them is to just to focus on the pure energy derived from their diet, which is not their problem.
Once again, CICO is only for people who already eat healthy foods and balanced macros. If you're a corn syrup guzzling goblin it does nothing for you except destroy your body even further, cause massive hunger pains and generally troll you into thinking cutting is some hard impossible thing that some people can just do effortlessly.
Again, completely missing the point. I don't how many times I'm gonna have to explain it to you, but we're going ad nauseam with this shit, and you're just not gonna comprehend what I'm saying.
we know you fucking retard lol, that's the point. We know what you're saying. We get it. But its not relevant to anything.
no one cares! no one asked!
>no one cares! no one asked!
You're the one making the technicalities, retard. That's what my original post about you fuckheads being pedantic idiots was all about in the first place. Because you add a million technicalities that ulitmately don't mater! Fucking Hell. Why are you so fucking stupid and lacking in self-awareness?
I reread your points and I actually think you're even more retarded than before, and OP is even more right. You are presenting a reductionist argument to die, and no one cares that you can technically gain weight eating health and technically lose weight eating unhealthy, it is a completely irrelevant point. Its not relevant to fatties. Its not relevant to athletes. Its not relevant to body builders. Its not relevant to powerfatties. Its never relevant except for maybe reddit, a place you two should go back to.
>and no one cares that you can technically gain weight eating healthy and technically lose weight eating unhealthy,
You don't care because it demolishes your unfounded criticisms of CICO, there's a difference.
If you're trying to lose weight, then you should eat less food. If you're trying to gain weight, you should eat more food. This shouldn't be controversial.
The only controversy is from retards like you saying "WOW SO YOU'RE SAYING I CAN EAT ONLY 1000KCAL OF SUGAR AND BE COMPLETELY HEALTHY HAHA WHAT A JOKE CICO IS FAKE.
You're the nutritional equivalent of pic related
Alright, and now you've just doubled down on your extreme way of looking at this and have made yourself looking even more foolish and unstable. And all because you lost an argument on the internet. Pathetic, dude... Really pathetic.
>and no one cares that you can technically gain weight eating health and technically lose weight eating unhealthy, it is a completely irrelevant point.
No, it's the most relevant thing possible to what I was saying. Because that's all CICO is, and that's all that matters. But then you unnecessarily add "b-b-but fat people can't stop eating over their TDEE, so they remain fat". Then I say "Right, but if they just DID eat below it, then they wouldn't remain fat", then you repeat yourself once again with "B-b-but they can't stop themselves", and we just go ad nauseam with this shit. So I'll ask you this question: If a fat person gained control of their eating habits and started eating at a caloric deficit, would they lose weight? Answer that question.
>If a fat person gained control of their eating habits and started eating at a caloric deficit, would they lose weight? Answer that question.
Yes they would lose weight. Weight from what? How much of it was muscle? How much of it was their organs dying? How much of it was their bones, ligaments, connective tissues etc?
No one is arguing whether or not you can lose weight. No one wants to lose weight. They want to lose their fat and be healthy AKA what OP said but you're retarded
It's gonna be from fat. You aren't losing 100lbs of organ weight, kid.
Oh my god, you actually proved my point where I said in this post
"Seriously, it's as annoying as those fucking retards who feel the need to go "um, ackshually, you mean fat loss" when you say "weight loss", when it's tacitly understood by literally everyone that when someone says "losing weight" they obviously mean "losing fat", because who the fuck would ever mean anything other than that in that context?"
Wow, dude, just... wow...
>Yes they would lose weight. Weight from what?
>How much of it was muscle?
>How much of it was their organs dying?
>How much of it was their bones, ligaments, connective tissues etc?
Oh, I know, the correct answer is... "all of it", right? Oh, wait, no, it's "none".
>They want to lose their fat and be healthy
When people say "losing weight", they mean "losing fat". This is automatically understood by everyone, so why isn't it understood by you? How can you possibly be this autistic about this?
>you can eat only sugar and be healthy
the final form of that CICOfatty has revealed himself
>you can eat only sugar and be healthy
Nope. Literally nothing was said about sugar or healthiness. You're gonna have to try harder than that to strawman me, dude. Now, while you CAN'T only eat nothing sugar and still be healthy, you can still LOSE WEIGHT by eating nothing but sugar. Of course, you're now going to conflate "losing weight" with "being healthy" and try to make it seem like I'm saying something that I'm not actually saying, so go ahead, get on with it.
you're the one who doesn't want to admit a sugar only diet will waste your muscles and other tissues away. You just argued in favor of that. You are retarded.
Not really. And good thing nobody actually eats purely sugar
He didn't say that, or even anything approximating it. You are a disingenuous pilpul-ing gay.
>Yes they would lose weight. Weight from what?
>How much of it was muscle?
hmmm maybe stfu moron lol
That response was about someone eating a caloric deficit, not eating only sugar. Can you go even one single post without lying or misrepresenting your contradictors?
Uh, bro, my question was "If a fat person gained control of their eating habits and started eating at a caloric deficit, would they lose weight? Answer that question." My question wasn't "if a person only ate sugar and took everything to the absolute extreme, would they lose weight?" Also, you answered that yes, they would lose weight, which is the only thing that mattered.
it really is difficulty discussing hypotheticals with sub 100 iq tardos. My bad, I get it, you're not capable.
>If a fat person gained control of their eating habits
that is what we're discussing, what ARE good habits? Energy is one of the least important aspects of diet. You literally admit it in your own argument but you're too stupid to see it.
>it really is difficulty discussing hypotheticals with sub 100 iq tardos. My bad, I get it, you're not capable
Says the guy who can't grasp the basics of what we're saying and ends misinterpreting eveything at every point.
>that is what we're discussing, what ARE good habits
You know what they are. Stop being willfully ignorant.
>Energy is one of the least important aspects of diet.
No, it's one of the most important, as far as weight control is concerned.
>You literally admit it in your own argument but you're too stupid to see it.
I actually don't, but you're too stupid to see it.
It's not a logical implication when the implication isn't even present in the first place, you fucking moron. Someone saying "you technically CAN lose weight by eating only sugar, but you shouldn't" is nowhere even close to implying that you SHOULD do it and that it's healthy. That is such a huge fucking leap in logic, bro. Stop being dumb. Stop making inferences based on shit that isn't there!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Ah, I hope you're baiting right now. Thanks for the laugh.
>argue with CICO gay
>be surprised when exercise gets discussed
the absolute state of /fat/
I have nothing against exercice, but execrise?
have a nice day you are a stupid nonwhite manlet
>Hey person with down syndrome, just be smarter.
Are you leaking food out of your stomach, you fucking retard?
If youre stuffying yourself with carbs your body wont tap into fat stores for energy.
Even if you calorie restrict, it will just lower metabolism rather than use fat before glycogen.
CICO fails because it doesnt address the fact that fat stores arent used unless glycogen depleted
Wrong. The body is constantly using a mixture of fat and glucose for energy.
>doesnt know how to calculate TDEE
fatties failing at life as usual, kek
>did CICO on a deficit
Dieting just to avoid being overweight is literally fatphobia.
It might just be fitophilia.
have a nice day.
Show me an obese prisoner in auschwitz, devil digits.
nah you are
CICO DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE OF ME
CICO as an exact formula is false. Anecdotally we see this when people complain about cutting “calories” but not losing “weight”. Slowly more people are going online explaining this scientifically. CICO being false doesn’t mean that eating less might not induce weight loss. It just won’t be the way CICO says it will be. But, but, tHe fIrSt lAw oF ThErMoDyNaMiCs. Lol, it’s just a theory when applied to animals.
To be scientific, talk about energy measured in Joules, and mass measured in grams. For an animal to lose mass it has to ingest less mass and or expel extra mass. A kJ has no mass.
What about people who say they lost weight by consuming fewer calories - what they did in fact was consume less mass. So stop being bitches and listen to your betters
It's always hilarious when retards like you speak so matter of fact and confidently about shit that you're just straight up wrong about. It's so embarrassing.
I am so sorry that the public school system failed you and you never learned how cellular respiration works
You're a moron.
>muh a kJ has no mass
>muh they consumed less mass
Oh really, because if some guy was to eat 5 kilos of dirt, they would gain weight because "more mass", right? Retard. Using kJ when talking about food implies material that can be converted into energy by the human body, not just random shit that has weight and energy. When people say they lost weight by consuming fewer calories, they mean they lost weight by eating less of the stuff that the body can metabolize, which does mean less weight but also automatically means fewer calories. It may come as a surprise to your little pea brain, but there's a very tight connection between weight and stored energy.
I swear to god, you hamplanets will go to any length to excuse your fat asses.
1 gram of fat has 9 calories. 1 gram of carbs or protein has 4.
You're a fucking retard.
you typed the opposing argument in caps and lowercase, you did not invalidate it.
who cares if it's oversimplified? it works. I ate more, i gained weight because that's what i needed. my fat roommate ate less, therefore he lost weight.
No, it’s not. Gaining and losing weight is truly as simple as “am I consuming more calories than I’m burning?” You’re not a 1 in a billion person with some kind of disorder that prevents your body from burning fat, even if you’re starving. You’re just a fatass who refuses to do basic addition.
Kek these threads always bring in a bunch of twinks whos only claim to any achievement is thinking their amazing willpower is why they arent fat
There is nothing out there disproving it. Saying CICO is wrong is a ketolard scam because somehow they have to try to justify telling people to eat most calorie dense and unhealthy slop in existence.
Holy shit the unironically coping fatties on this thread
What should we do to rid IST of this plague? Make everyone eat a serving of broccoli before they're allowed to access the site?
Are CICO negationist just larpers?
there's so many retards here that some might actually be genuine
I think it's the corporations paying for these disinformation threads as they take the biggest hit if this info gets out, but I have no proof other than I notice cico fastfood threads pop up at the same time. Cico works and if you want to stay satiated, then eat nutrient dense, low calorie food high in calcium, zinc, potassium, sodium etc. Sage
>CICO gays think you can just drink beer and be healthy as long as you don't go over your TDE
>bro I did the math these 10 oreos are healthy I swear
>Yeah dude this literally saved my heckin cut!
>contains no butter
>ingredients: corn syrup
Literally no one thinks like this.
You are blessed to never be around fatties then. The only people who can pull off a CICO based diet are people who were already eating normal food and not malnutritious, poisonous, sneed oil corn syrup food. I have a fat cousin who I've given the advice 10 times to just stop drinking soda and she never listens.
Okay, but what does that have to do with CICO somehow not fundementally working?
Because it's not helpful at all. It's like telling a poor person they should just get more money.
It's literally nothing like that at all. It being hard for someone to stop eating has no bearing on whether CICO as mechanism for weight loss works or not.
>confusing weight with other health aspects
CICO is baby's first fitness and health concept. With a fatass you really can't go beyond that. First you have to get them to stop eating less calories of the same garbage they've been eating all their life. Then, if the disgusting fucking whales actually stick to it and lose weight, you can get them to stop eating zogchow little by little until it's gone for good from their life. If you drop both these ideas on them at the same time they won't even bother, their brains are broken from all the junk food, discipline is an alien concept for them.
Let me guess, your weight has nothing to do with you being a butter huffing retard.
>you WILL drink ze sneed oil
>you WILL eat ze bugs
ketoschizo is evolving, is becoming a form of micro celebrity
>just CICO bro
>Furthermore, due to the assessment of alcohol consumption relying on prior clinical evaluation in the medical records, it cannot be ruled out that individual patients may have exceeded cut-off limits for alcohol consumption (20 g/d for women and 30 g/d for men)
>Finally, the effect of weight gain on NAFLD could not be considered, which would have been interesting, as a previous study suggested, that in patients suffering from anorexia with severe malnutrition, steatosis especially occurred in the process of refeeding
What point are you making here?
>this fucking thread
I don’t think ketoschizo can read good, bros
I think we hurt his feelings too much. Poor fella. He must crying his eyes out right now.
>CICO is law
>The calories on a nutrition label don't always relate to CALORIES IN 1:1 because the human body is not a bomb calorimeter, but are a good estimation 99% of the time
>TDEE varies a lot with hormones, activity level, weather, muscle mass, blood pressure, blood volume, etc. etc.
>TDEE calculators suck ass
>Diet macros and micros alone can effect TDEE
All of these things can be true at the same time
This post is by far the most well thought-out and coherent out of any post in this thread. Well said, anon. Can't believe it took 150 posts for that lol.
The biggest loser is the ultimate case point of CICO and they ALL gain it back, at absolute best in the perfect environment CICO is extremely temporary
They gain the weight back because they start eating at a surplus again.
This is another retarded argument that cunts make that I fucking hate, because you make it seem like their relapse is the fault of CICO, when it's the fault of their lack of self-control. At that point, it wouldn't even matter what diet you put them on. If they don't have the discipline to eat at or below maintenance on CICO, then they're not gonna have the discipline to do it on any other diet either. It's not CICOs fault, it's the fault of the person.
It's also the most succinct explanation for losing weight and all the additional bells and whistles have been co-opted by grifters and influencers trying to sell you something. Anti cico fags have to construct strawmen like "but wot if u ate nothing but cake, cico btfo" as a preface so some retarded meme diet.
Cico + self made food with a bro science catalog of recipes is enough for healthy weight loss. All the keto and fasting and other stuff only works because of cico, it is the fundamental principal to weight loss even if it is not the only one.
Why obsess over calories when you can just eat more or less to gain or lose weight?
Damn bros those fat people just dont have our amazing willpower *smug smile*
From reading this thread as an outsider my conclusion is
>pro CICO posters are either autistic or just want to win an argument really badly
>anti CICO posters are logical posters basing the idea of CICO in the real world or atleast in an environment that would ever actually occur
t. OP posting from McDonalds wifi
It actually is OP and I havnt replied itt since the first post as ive been at work BUT im only telling you this because look at the digits both posts
>b-but the numbers make me right!
Sorry, but I got dubs twice in a row. Therefore my argument is righter. End of
>n-nooo you can't just do that!
You were so smug with your reply, lmao. I accept your concession.
At this rate I'm sure we'll witness the first CICO terror attack in the next couple of years, you people are deranged.
>anon why are you holding these hostages what do you want?
*shrieks in a nasally voice*
>I WANT TO PROVE THE WORLD THAT THE HUMAN BODY OBEYS THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS
*sets fire to an innocent woman and her child*
>SEE? CICO IS REAL I TOLD YOU
Wait... did anyone else smell that?
It cant be...
The deranged cico poster spamming this thread is the anti keto poster! I knew it!!!
I'm sure there's at least a couple of us
Theres one spaz who blows up any keto thread any time ever, similar to the chud who stalks any thread that mentions sam hyde, you sometimes forget where you are and how many genuine spergs are here
yeah that guy is no fun, I just call CICO cultits and insult myself a few posts later
For people who don't believe in CICO what do you think the mechanism behind weightloss is? For CICO it's pretty simple, if you consume fewer calories than you use your body makes up the difference by consuming some of your weight into energy - straightforward, easy to understand mechanism. But if you don't think that works what causes weightloss? Like do you think that if you eat the right combination of food it triggers a chemical reaction causing your fat to evaporate?
I dont think anyone thinks in the perfect system it doesnt work, you just have to apply theories to the real world for it to be worth a shit and that there are a million other factors involved with weight loss or weight gain,
The OP said its a retarded oversimplification, the CICO spazzes here didnt understand that but saying do CICO to lose weight is literally like telling a poor person to save more to cure being poor
>saying do CICO to lose weight is literally like telling a poor person to save more to cure being poor
No it isn't. Stop using these retarded fucking analogies. It's nothing fucking like it.
Its exactly like it and your iq is too low to understand why, that doesnt make it incorrect
why magick, sorcery, and mental gymnastics of course
>eats 3k calories of fruit per day
>looks like this
BuT it'S toTaLlY CICO
She obviously doesn't actually eat 3000 calories of fruit or anywhere close to it. You shouldn't even need to be told something so obvious. Stop being dumb.
She has multiple videos of her pounding down thousands of calories.
>b-b-but she's probably just puking or something!
ScienceTM whorshipers like you will never be convinced.
Pic related, yet another one who eats an insane amount every day and is shredded.
Keep austistically counting calories lol
You're debunking yourself at this point.
He's a pathetic loser for blaming CICO for somehow not working when he wasn't even doing it correctly in the first place. Seriously, why do you stupid cunts need constant clarification on everything that is said, no matter how clear what I'm saying is? And even after you recieve the clarification, you still fail to understand it anyway. What is wrong with you morons? Seriously.
>You're debunking yourself at this point.
You have no rebuttal.
Because you rebutted yourself when you said ">b-b-but she's probably just puking or something!" Because, yeah, she obviously is. You made the argument for me, dumbass.
CICOfags are in a cult.
I fail to see how it's cultish to say "if you eat at a 1000 calorie deficit, you'll lose fat, and if you eat at a 1000 calorie surplus, you'll gain fat". I mean, that's just how it works, bro. I fail to see where the contention lies.
You ACTUALLY believe you're in either a 1000 calorie surplus or deficit though.
>hurr durr muh calorimeter calories are LITERALLY how my body process food!
Food kcals aren't calculated by raw bomb calorimetry. Look up Atwater process you disingenuous evil lying weirdo
>ScienceTM whorshipers like you will never be convinced.
The thing that really pisses me off about those people is that they actually know almost no science. CICO trannies never talk about factors like hormones, gut biome, or glycemic load that we know for a fact are important for someone trying to lose fat. It's just like the vax maxers who think everyone else needs to take a vaccine that doesn't prevent infection or spread of COVID so that their vaccine that doesn't prevent infection or spread of COVID to work.
What's your point? Ekberg is anti-goyslop, not anti-carb:
Dude there is no way any human eats 3000kcal fruit and veggie a day, that’s like 20kg. Fucking idiot
She LITERALLY ate over 5,000 calories worth of bananas in that video you fucking idiot.
High calorie fruit exists.
Nuh uh, fuckwit. Go count how many kilos that is
Dude I eat 3000kcal per day and I'm lean at ~12% bodyfat
I'm ACTIVE ENOUGH that this is still around my maintenance level - that's the calories OUT part you mouth breather
I ate complex carbs and meat for a year and lost 100lbs while at a 500 calorie deficit and doing mild cardio, I didn't think much about it. I mostly eyeballed it too, I didn't weigh out each meal. It's easy. It works. That's all that matters. Do what works and is easy. If this doesn't work and isn't easy, do something else.
You say this because you have no self control.
Once you know how much you can eat in a day to maintain, it's not fucking rocket science to figure that cutting 10-20% of total calories will cause reasonable fat loss and that adding 10-20% will be conducive to lean mass gains.
Literally, CICO has always ruled over all the meme shit that people use for excuses or "this diet is the one that works" shit.
Stop being a gay, learn 2 track your shit, be reasonable and honest with yourself and don't lie, and you too can CICO your way to where you want to go.
>not eating roundmeal
Yeah it's a little simplified, but Energy In Energy Out accounts for the rest of it.
The largest lever people have in changing the equation is how much food they put in their mouths. It really is that simple.
Starve yourself for 20 days. Nothing but water, and if you don’t lose weight I’ll concede that CICO doesn’t work.
Otherwise, put down your fucking fork you fatty
So we're all just going to do the same thread over again tomorrow, right?
There's two arguments made by CICOfags. One is just restating the first law of thermodynamics. The other is that you can eat anything, goyslop included, and still lose weight. When challenged that eating basedbean oil and HFCS laden goyslop is not a sustainable way to lose weight CICOfags retreat to the first argument. "Nu-uh, it's THERMODYNAMICS after all".
All I know is that garden gnomes love CICO because no one is going to autistically weigh every single thing they eat long term and will instead rely on ~~*prepackaged foods*~~ with convenient calorie counts.
>When challenged that eating basedbean oil and HFCS laden goyslop is not a sustainable way to lose weight
It quite literally is. You can eat literally any substance and the end result will be weight loss if the digestible caloric content is less than your tdee. The other affects the substances you ingest have on your body (change in body composition, cancer, immediate death, etc) do not change the basic and indisputable fact that you will lose weight if the digestible calories you consume are less than what you burn.
Sure but it isn't sustainable. Your body will crave missed nutrients and drive you to binge. So CICO is not really good advice because it's an oversimplification that leaves out the part where you have to eat healthy to make a deficit sustainable.
Don't bother, that terminally online roid chud is a lost cause.
>b-but I don’t have the willpower to not binge
That’s not the fault of cico. It’s your own fault for being a weak willed brainlet. It’s not advisable to eat only goyslop and follow cico. That said, it would absolutely lead to weight loss if you followed it consistently.
Daily reminder that this is the person making these threads