CICO is technically true while practically false

CICO isn't about health. It's about weight. Yeah food quality matters but you're not going to get obese eating 2,000 calories a day, regardless of the source. This is flat earther levels of moronation

>unless you perpetually limit your food intake
Yes anon, that is what you have to do to not gain weight again, if your goal is weight loss you are going to have a target weight and be on a caloric defecit until you achieve it and then to sustain that weight you eat enough to maintain that weight taking into consideration all your energy needs so that you don't lose or gain weight.
Like i said, you aren't going to cut or bulk forever, is true that your body will resist but if you persist it has no other option than adapting.

>see other reply: once you get to a healthy weight, you've changed your maintenance calories.
Yes that is true and i said to maintain that new weight you eat enough to maintain that weight, i never said that you eat the same you used to eat before losing weight wich would obviously make you regain the lost weight.

> I've lost a significant amount of weight three times
hmm. why did you have to do it three times? can't you just lose the weight and go back to maintenance, under your thinking? if it's so easy, and there aren't any other issues to worry about, why does literally everyone who loses weight struggle with it long-term
> pound of fat has 3500 calories in it
debatable, actual human body fat can be highly variable and isn't all pure-energy storage fat, so this kind of reductionist stuff is why it's impossible to argue CICO with people
>It's true that telling people CICO isn't enough to help them, but CICO is still part of any solution that works.
ok that i can agree with. But it's also technically meaningless to say CICO has to be satisfied, because the point is: it's always satisfied. if it's always satisfied, it's not really meaningful and doesn't help obese people to parrot the same truisms over and over again

it's more of a tautology. if you gain weight you have eaten too much.

thought experiment: let's say there was an objective measure of hunger. you're fatand i'm skinny. i was 4 units hungry, but ate 5 units of food, feeling fat. you were 10 units hungry, but at 8 units of food, feeling disciplined. you gain weight, i don't. if i tell you to "just put the fork down," did i help you

but you already "put the fork down," by exercising restraint, so you kind of missed the point of the thought experiment

again you missed the point of the thought experiment and now you're getting angry. have you met the limits of your knowledge? that must be very frustrating for you

(cont.)
I'd say that actually advice is
1. (CICO) start counting calories
2. (Garmin) get a fitness watch that gives you a number for expended calories
3. (Leanfit) prefer protein to carbs, and carbs to fat. You don't have to have a nice day over this, but protein's very satiating and this preference is in order of how much work your body does to consume the calories, so 100kcal of protein has a hidden discount vs. 100kcal of fat
4. (Leanfit) have 2 large meals a day and ignore all the other shitty wrong advice about the time of day mattering, or more meals being better.
5. (fat=3500kcal) care about your deficit over time and not any particular day, motivate yourself with simple calculations: you'll hit the target in 6.5 months if you keep it up

> I've lost a significant amount of weight three times
hmm. why did you have to do it three times? can't you just lose the weight and go back to maintenance, under your thinking? if it's so easy, and there aren't any other issues to worry about, why does literally everyone who loses weight struggle with it long-term
> pound of fat has 3500 calories in it
debatable, actual human body fat can be highly variable and isn't all pure-energy storage fat, so this kind of reductionist stuff is why it's impossible to argue CICO with people
>It's true that telling people CICO isn't enough to help them, but CICO is still part of any solution that works.
ok that i can agree with. But it's also technically meaningless to say CICO has to be satisfied, because the point is: it's always satisfied. if it's always satisfied, it's not really meaningful and doesn't help obese people to parrot the same truisms over and over again

it's great that you're aware of the threat of reductionism, but do you think that's the only problem out there? You're like a guy who can't follow simple directions because "go north for five miles, then turn east" requires you to go down a road that is not exactly north, but 5 degrees to the northeast

"just eat less" always works. It's just not useful advice because people won't actually do it without more advice.

Imagine torturing yourself like this to be lean.. does everyone who does cico just hate themselves? A healthy human eats according to their appetite and stays lean, there will never be a point where starving yourself will somehow normalize your appetite to be that of a healthy person without metabolic damage. Fit doesn't want to hear this answer because they think being masochistic idiots who go on binging and cutting cycles makes them sigma and that being lean requires giga discipline when you can eat according to your appetite, be lean, and enjoy your food.

You can rely on your appetite just fine if you know which foods to get. If you are on binging and cutting cycles, what you're doing is simply not working, if you need to torture yourself by restricting your body's signals for sustenance, it's not working.

newsflash sherlock, over 40% of americans are obese. animals in zoos have controlled diets. you can easily overfeed animals.

Animal feed has seed oils, animals do not get fat eating intuitively, as much as they want, unless they are hibernating animals, and these hibernating animals just happen to eat things like pufas, which induce torpor, low body temperatures, things that would signal the animal to hibernate. The body does not actually want to get fat, eating extra energy when you aren't insulin resistant will get burned off by a raised metabolic rate, when you're insulin resistant it is stored, restrictive eating and pufas will get you to insulin resistance. CICO basically hinges on the fact that more energy = more fat stored. When you're metabolically healthy this isn't true, when you are insulin resistant it is true, being fat is not actually a state the body wants to be in, if it can it will raise it's metabolic rate before storing fat. Even though it's not a state the body wants to be in, metabolic damage/insulin resistance is adaptive as survival mechanism, and it's triggered by pufas and starvation.

nah it's just how it worked for humans for thousands of years and still works for animals in zoos who don't count calories but eat their natural diet

>you can easily overfeed animals.
you can test this at home by giving your cat only meat. give it as much as it wants. watch what happens

>No wild animal needs to count calories in order to not be fat. They eat the diet their biology and metabolism is adapted to, and that keeps them at a healthy bodyfat level.
based.

newsflash sherlock, over 40% of americans are obese. animals in zoos have controlled diets. you can easily overfeed animals.

how do you explain how every animal in the wild naturally regulates bodyweight? why does every last cow of a specific breed always look the same? they're either 1) intuitive calorie counters, in which case it's possible for humans too and something is broken or 2) automatically balanced by nature, which is silly given that cows can eat as much grass as they want and still end up looking like cows

all the evidence that CICO is a dumb paradigm is all around you, you just can't see it

why does every shark look the same? because every single food environment on earth has the perfect amount of calories for every shark? look at the contortions your views have forced you into

explain why 99% of wild animals are at their genetically designed weights

or you're missing an entire side of biological reality in which dumb wild animals with no concept of calories and zero concept of willpower can naturally eat themselves to a healthy weight in 99% of cses

still haven't explained how either 1) wild animals eat themselves to healthy weights or 2) nature provides them the perfect caloric environment necessary to do so

until you can put a case forward your claims are easily dismissed by any reasonable person

and there it is. if you were within miles of the truth my question would be so easy to answer

>wild

>hurr durr it's more complicated than i understand, therefore they're overcomplicating it

the other ones aren't tautologies like CICO. imagine if i said "but you need oxygen in, CO2 out" You'd rightly call me dumb for even thinking in those terms. that is so OBVIOUSLY what is happening that it's not even worth any discussion.

that's basically where CICO is at. it's a tautology, an arithmetic summary, that offers nothing useful in the treatment of obesity

bwahaha what? you thought I was DENYING it? i'm saying it's so obvious that it's true that it's a dumb thing to say, just like CICO

I think a better analogy would be if someone asked why team a won over team b in basketball and their answer was "bro, they just scored more points, that's it, to win you have to score more than the other team". That's basically CICO, it's true in the most autistic sense that energy cannot come from nowhere, but as a diet model it fails since it promotes restrictive eating. In reality eating more, if your body wants it, is actually a good thing, it raises your metabolic rate and makes you function better. To be lean and healthy, you should be eating as much as you want, avoiding pufas or whatever mystery ingredients they put in food.

the useful thing that it offers is that it gives you an easily calculated metric to see what's likely to happen to your body based on what you're eating and doing. Fatties can benefit from this, and their frustrations don't come from CICO being false but from it being hard to follow without more advice.

(cont.)
I'd say that actually advice is
1. (CICO) start counting calories
2. (Garmin) get a fitness watch that gives you a number for expended calories
3. (Leanfit) prefer protein to carbs, and carbs to fat. You don't have to have a nice day over this, but protein's very satiating and this preference is in order of how much work your body does to consume the calories, so 100kcal of protein has a hidden discount vs. 100kcal of fat
4. (Leanfit) have 2 large meals a day and ignore all the other shitty wrong advice about the time of day mattering, or more meals being better.
5. (fat=3500kcal) care about your deficit over time and not any particular day, motivate yourself with simple calculations: you'll hit the target in 6.5 months if you keep it up
[...]
it's great that you're aware of the threat of reductionism, but do you think that's the only problem out there? You're like a guy who can't follow simple directions because "go north for five miles, then turn east" requires you to go down a road that is not exactly north, but 5 degrees to the northeast

is more complete advice that worked and still works for me. Someone asking me about why every cow "looks the same" is just pointlessly avoiding the truth. Accept what's obviously true and ask more useful questions.

I think a better analogy would be if someone asked why team a won over team b in basketball and their answer was "bro, they just scored more points, that's it, to win you have to score more than the other team". That's basically CICO, it's true in the most autistic sense that energy cannot come from nowhere, but as a diet model it fails since it promotes restrictive eating. In reality eating more, if your body wants it, is actually a good thing, it raises your metabolic rate and makes you function better. To be lean and healthy, you should be eating as much as you want, avoiding pufas or whatever mystery ingredients they put in food.

>In reality eating more, if your body wants it, is actually a good thing,
I once ate five large butterfinger candy bars in a row. If I order pizza I find it difficult not to eat an entire pie. My body wanted it so it's fine? But my body is also totally content after a protein shake and a three-egg omlette?
This isn't more useful advice than CICO, bro.

>Accept what's obviously true and ask more useful questions.
odd you feel this way, since it's like you stole my line. CICO is so obviously true ("the team who scores more wins") that i prefer to ask more useful questions

and cows all look the same when they eat grass because they're supposed to eat grass, btw. in a healthy animal, their brain does all the regulating for them, just as it does for every other process. bodyweight is not unique in this regard

i'd suggest switching species

get strict about reading food labels like these ripped dudes

it's an answer, you just didn't like it

you see i was being tongue in cheek, suggesting that these modern day hunter gatherers did actually not have access to food labels to (inaccurately) count their calories, suggesting there are alternatives if you want to be in great shape

roids? eat a lot? i'm not denying you can change your body composition. i wouldn't recommend it because they're already ripped and healthy though

>Just force feed yourself and if you feel like there are certain days where you didn't eat enough eat more. Multiple meals to make it easier to eat more
Ah so you increase calories in. I see.

They've miscalculated their baseline and they should increase their caloric intake until they reach an actual surplus.

imagine being proud that you're aware this exists. people are so weird with CICO

you're down to "how do you bulk up? by eating food" and this is your takeaway from our conversation

good day to you as well. let's remain strangers

To bulk up they would eat pufas to induce insulin resistance and hibernation like signals (torpor, lower body temperature). This would signal the body to store fat, note, it would make zero difference for their muscle mass.

So the new anti-cico claim is to also deny the possibility of natty body composition change?

Where do I say that? Natties won't get super low bodyfat while holding onto muscle, isn't this commonly known? If you starve, or cut as bodybuilders like to call it, you will lose muscle, unless you're already obese, your bodyfat percentage will not change because you are losing fat and muscle in tandem. You need drugs to be able to maintain muscle at low bodyfat. Binging and cutting is an eating disorder popularized by mentally ill gay bodybuilders who are all on drugs, remember that.

So the new anti-cico claim is to also deny the possibility of natty body composition change?

>Being fat = insulin resistance = metabolic damage.
this makes sense as an explanation for how someone could maintain a caloric surplus long enough to get really fat. But once there, deliberately maintaining a caloric deficit will lose you that weight, even while still eating garbage.

Thanks for setting up a false dichotomy of focusing on one instead of both.

The equivalent in business contexts, is saying that profits are more relevant than revs (which is true), so let me suggest that we can ignore measuring revs (which is stupid).

who doesn't layer CICO estimations on top of macro tracking anyways.

>who doesn't layer CICO estimations on top of macro tracking anyways.
I only paid attention to the protein%. 25% is doing good. 12%? better eat less rye bread.

Every shark doesn't look the same.

>you can easily overfeed animals.
you can test this at home by giving your cat only meat. give it as much as it wants. watch what happens

>No wild animal needs to count calories in order to not be fat. They eat the diet their biology and metabolism is adapted to, and that keeps them at a healthy bodyfat level.

food is scarce in nature you mongoloid

People intuitively ate for all of human history until post ww2 and nobody was fat. Your processed foods are hijacking your appetite, hormones and brain chemistry and causing people overeat.
The fact that even you have to sit there and log your slice of cheese into your corporate food tracking/data mining app just to prevent you from overeating is proof of this
It is damn near impossible to overeat when you’re eating non processed satiating foods only.
Do an experiment. One Saturday, eat as much processed food as you possibly can and track all the calories to see how much you can eat. Then the next Saturday, eat as much meat, fruit, dairy, veggies and eggs as you possibly can and track the calories. After 3k cals of steak and eggs the thought of eating any more food will make you physically ill, but you can easily keep stuffing your face with cookies all day long

>People intuitively ate for all of human history until post ww2 and nobody was fat
Taft was fat lmao. many people were fat. your claim that people just got fatter because the food is "processed" is moronic. there were fat people in the roman empire.
Hint: its not the type of food, its the amount. food being cheaper because of technological development driving efficiency up. indian peasants in 1850 were not thin because their food wasnt processed, they were thin because their food was expensive compared to their total disposable income. (and they had physical labour)
processed food can give as much satiety as non processed ones. the anti "process" movement in nutrition is just pure hippie bullshit

again, predator prey equilibrium. if herbivores starve, wolves starve, but plants grow unchecked by the herbivores and now herbivores dont starve anymore, their population grows, and wolves now have more stuff to eat. if wolves could eat all they want all the time, they'd eventually grow large in number and the herbivore population would dry up.
if you think your fat ass in the supermarket is the same as a wolf in nature then i have nothing else to say to you, you are medically moronic

>deflecting the main point
>ughhh you just dont get it
another vanquished fatass

People intuitively ate for all of human history until post ww2 and nobody was fat. Your processed foods are hijacking your appetite, hormones and brain chemistry and causing people overeat.
The fact that even you have to sit there and log your slice of cheese into your corporate food tracking/data mining app just to prevent you from overeating is proof of this
It is damn near impossible to overeat when you’re eating non processed satiating foods only.
Do an experiment. One Saturday, eat as much processed food as you possibly can and track all the calories to see how much you can eat. Then the next Saturday, eat as much meat, fruit, dairy, veggies and eggs as you possibly can and track the calories. After 3k cals of steak and eggs the thought of eating any more food will make you physically ill, but you can easily keep stuffing your face with cookies all day long

I mean to actually get obese, the average physically active and otherwise healthy grown man probably has to consistently eat >4k cals a day for many months. I doubt you can eat 4k cals of meat for months straight without calorie counting and force feeding. When you’re eating nourishing real food your body will not want to eat anymore after is is nourished.
Again why was nobody fat 100 years ago? Nobody counted calories either. They weren’t
>le hecking starving and fighting off Sabre tooth tigers and dying at 35
in 1924. They had restaurants and cars and gyms and stores. Yet nobody had to count calories.

>It is damn near impossible to overeat when you’re eating non processed satiating foods only
See pic. Dilate.

>no, I won't recognize that CO is just as important as CI

>Yes
Thanks for confirming that CICO is a meme 😉
Literal moron BTFO himself lmao

>I don't train tho
Could have fooled me, lmao.
Also, this mofo is 4'11, no wonder you hate numbers and the natural order.

Did you comprehend this post

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

We do, that's why we have to breathe in oxygen and output heat, co2 and water vapour. That's exactly why energy content of food is reported as heat derivative energy unit. It also matches ATP yields (fat yielding double the ATP than carbs).

>natural order

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

We do, that's why we have to breathe in oxygen and output heat, co2 and water vapour. That's exactly why energy content of food is reported as heat derivative energy unit. It also matches ATP yields (fat yielding double the ATP than carbs).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6768815/
>Dietary fiber intake, independently of macronutrient and caloric intake, promotes weight loss and dietary adherence in adults with overweight or obesity consuming a calorie-restricted diet.
Whereas cows and gorillas get tons of fat and weight from fiber.

You are exceedingly moronic and obtuse.

Just like they don't use uranium or coal or kerosine, our cells don't use fiber to produce ATP. Very simple.

I'm not wrangling this one without a pay bump.

No, fiber is not counted into calorie total.

Illiterate

[...]
By the way gay Im not saying eating less will mean you gain more weight, and that eating less won't make you lose weight 95% of the time
CICOtards seem to believe that by saying CICO is a shit oversimplification, you are obviously moronic because the above is false

All of you are repeating the same shit I already said you would.

>Weight and BMI decreased in the first period of isocaloric diet in both groups, regardless of the type of flour consumed (weight p<0.01, p<0.001 respectively; BMI p = 0.01, p<0.001 respectively).
So this "isocaloric" diet had people losing weight regardless of their fiber intake, literally what's your point moron

>CICO is bullshit!!
>Can't post shirtless pic cuz fat
This Black person is something else lmao

I see an out of shape manlet, why should anyone follow your advise?

>I don't train tho
Clearly.