CICO is technically true while practically false

Macro tracking and food quality is better than CICO

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You mean impractical.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm with you until the conclusion
    >it's a shitty tool practically
    No? It's the best tool practically. You eat whatever amount of calories divided into some macro spread. 1-2 weeks later you've either gained, maintained or lost weight. Then you just adjust the number, what % is absorbed or not is irrelevant because all your factors are self contained to a simple A+B=C.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >It's the best tool practically.
      As shown by the incurable obesity crisis that plagues the world for decades now. You, Black person, are a moron.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        because all the obese, often poor, people in the world are tracking their calories and eating fresh, high quality foods
        were you born this stupid or did something happen later?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >conflating calorie tracking with food quality
          Dishonest moron

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            the two go hand in hand

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              No they fricking don't moron.
              Mfs will say this shit and then post the twinkie diet experiment as proof of cico

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Things like the twinkie diet prove it in principle as an extreme version of why CICO works. Most who support CICO wouldn't tell you eating twinkies everyday is a good idea though for obvious reasons.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                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

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Ah yes, because food addicted, braindead americans keep track of what they plunge into their maws.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Obese people don't count their calories let alone macros you moron.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >People progressively eat more and shittier
        >How could they possibly be getting fatter

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Just because people are too weak to use a tool doesn't mean that tool isn't the best suited for the job.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >No?
      Low-T zoomie spotted.
      Stop misusing question marks like this.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      And then you lose weight but gain BF%
      Most people, when they say weight loss, they mean losing their fat specifically

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    you fat Black person that thread is STILL up and you go ahead and make a new thread with this?

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Cico is a mathematic inevitability not a diet. You want to lose undifferentiated mass you have cut calories from some category. You want to lose almost exclusively fat mass that's diffent.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The point he’s making is that while a mathematical inevitably, it implies an action plan that is not optimal. Implicit in the reality of CICO is a rate of CO, but that’s totally ignored in favor of CI. If CICO is legit, then by manipulating CO effectively, you render CI inessential at a certain point. But even thay’s not so simple because that implies activity as a way to stimulate CO and it is, but so is resting metabolism, your hormonal profile, all sorts of other things that are part of that CO side of the equation. Theoretically, if your metabolism is junk, it’s impractical to recommend upping exercise as a way of stimulating CO to overcome CI. So in the end, to recommend a CICO philosophy as a diet method is almost always inefficient. People would almost universally be better off taking a look at their hormonal profile and metabolic rate. The higher the metabolic rate, the more effortless the CICO method is. The lower, the more difficult.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Sure, but regardless of what you do, CICO still enters into acction, you cannot lose weight on a caloric surplus, CICO is the result of your actions, not a diet program.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >it implies an action plan that is not optimal.
        who is this for?
        If it's for fatties, then "not optimal" is pretty far from their problem, and the action plan that CICO implies is just tracking this information at all, which if kept up converts any other objection into information that you can iterate on. After you've definitely maintained a caloric deficit of 500 for a month and still not lost any weight or improved your body's composition, then you can take a harder look at your macronutrients or your gut health.
        What this sounds like is an attempt to make the prefect the enemy of the good, and not do anything.
        If it's for athletes it's a different story.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Theoretically, if your metabolism is junk, it’s impractical to recommend upping exercise as a way of stimulating CO to overcome CI
        In that case lower CI

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          sounds so easy until you're at prison experiment levels of calories in and the scale stops moving again. all models of obesity are incomplete, but especially CICO

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If metabolism is slow eat less.
            >Eventually can't eat less
            >Increase exercise now
            >Caloric expenditure increase
            >Need to eat more to sustain higher activity
            >If new intake surpasses caloric expenditure you gain weight, if it doesn't you don't.
            Feel like the problem with these sort of threads is that most want to think in black and white, in extremes and can't see very simple solutions.
            Adjusting your diet, no matter what type of diet, is necessary for optimal results.
            You aren't going to be on a cut or a bulk forever.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >>If metabolism is slow eat less.
              this is dumb though. i've done it, and all that happens is your body fights it by lowering expenditure and increasing appetite to get your weight-losing ass back to homeostasis. and we know from the studies that you'll basically be primed to gain weight unless you perpetually limit your food intake. so either you admit that obese people have to eat less for eternity, or we start doing some real thinking

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                see other reply: once you get to a healthy weight, you've changed your maintenance calories.

                if you don't believe me, you can prove what i'm saying for yourself. just do an experiment where you (if you're healthy) and an obese person eat the exact same food, down to the gram, for five years. see if they end up at your weight.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >increasing appetite
                "my body made me more hungry so I had to eat"
                I've lost a significant amount of weight three times, in different ways, and each time I was counting calories. Ignoring calories when you're already fat is just consigning yourself to the status quo.
                1. keto starvation diet while eating like shit. It sucked, my body "fought back" by "lowering expenditure" - i.e., I slept a lot. I was under high pressure to get into the military before I got kicked out, so I fought back against my "increasing appetite" by ignoring it. I would do things like have a single coke, do the math, say "welp I can't eat anything else now because I had too many carbs". I lost 40 lbs in three months. I was mildly moronic throughout basic.
                2. less insane diet while doing lots of cardio while eating not as much like shit. I was under high pressure to lose weight or get kicked out of the military, so I fought against my "increased appetite" by ignoring it. I'd want a candy bar, and then jog on a treadmill for an hour to burn the calories to make room for the bar. I lost 25 pounds in three months and felt pretty good.
                3. eating well and doing actually fun cardio while only caring about my running-weekly average caloric deficit. I would go on 2-hour trips on the weekend and burn 3000kcal for the day, and I wasn't stressed about any particular day's calories. I lost 35 pounds in a year. I felt better than ever and even gained some obvious muscle.
                You can't meaningfully lose weight in a single day because a pound of fat has 3500 calories in it, and even eating nothing at all while remaining reasonably active won't burn that much. But you can easily lose a pound a week while feeling a bit hungry at an average 500 kcal deficit, or you can easily lose a pound a month with an absolutely painless average deficit of 120kcal. That's a coke a day.

                It's true that telling people CICO isn't enough to help them, but CICO is still part of any solution that works.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                > 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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                its not a truism to tell people that their obesity comes from eating too much lmao
                fatty cope again

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                yes, you helped because you told me exactly what to do to solve my problem, next question

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                thats a moronic point to make. in that scenario i exercised some restraint, but clearly not enough. fatasses "exercising restraint" by only eating half a ton of icecream wont lose weight, no shit sherlock.
                Also your "objective measure of hunger" compared to units of "food" is wrong. different foods produce different levels of satiety. also fatties eat food even past their satiety level, or eat food too fast. Have you ever fasted? hunger is not a linear function.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                i did not miss your point, i see your "point", and i can clearly see that you didnt think it through, so i just dismissed it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                (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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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
                funny you use this analogy because it suggests that you accept that "just eat less" doesn't work exactly as advertised, too. i'm just observing that it doesn't work for 95%+ of people and obesity is not yet solved despite of everyone being aware of thermodynamics, so maybe there IS more to the story

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >"just eat less" always works. It's just not useful advice because people won't actually do it without more advice.
                by the transitive property, it is therefore, at best, unhelpful advice, which is all i'm saying

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                1. tortured myself to not be homeless
                2. tortured myself to not be dishonorably discharged
                3. had one of the best years of my life and had a lot of fun doing it
                The water and food supply are both massively poisoned, trying to cope with that by relying on your appetite isn't going to go well. You can't move mindlessly through a collapsing civilization.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >A healthy human eats according to their appetite and stays lean
                lmfao this is literally HAES's muh intuitive eating
                you are a coping fatty troony.
                of course "intuitive eating" doesnt work, otherwise people would never get fat, but they do get fat, so you need to make them change their eating patterns. "eat less calories" is a way to address that.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                People get fat because they're eating foods that are inappropriate for their biology, i.e. modern junk foods

                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.

                Cats on kibble ( a bunch of carb-laden junk) need to have their food portioned out because they'll overeat and get fat, versus my cat that just eats wet food (which is exclusively animal products) eats till he's satisfied, then he stops eating. He often leaves a portion of the food there and he'll come back for it later. I don't have to worry about him overeating at all, and he stays lean and IST.

                The modern junk food is the problem, not a lack of calorie counting. Most people do not want to count their calories for every single meal, and even if they did, they'd find themselves hungry all the time because the food they're eating is not satisfying

                Our bodies need nutrition from food, not just filler that we fill our stomachs with

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                food is scarce in nature you drooling moron. the predator/prey equilibrium keeps it like that

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >this thing that's obviously true on its face is false, actually, because I don't know much about sharks

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't know much about sharks either. Become a nutritional biologist and follow some animals around for a few years, track what they eat, dig through their shit, have a blast.
                Don't expect to find some kind of disproof in whatever shit you're analyzing, of a caloric surplus being required to gain weight over time, or a caloric deficit being required to lose weight over time. This is really simple stuff to try and confuse people about.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                you need oxygen to breathe
                >oh yeah!? Show me a lion that can read the periodic table of the elements! You won't find one! Do you really think oxygen matters?
                yes I do

                I'm sitting on a chair right now
                >oh yeah!? That chair is a lot more detailed if you look at it closely enough. At a high enough resolution it consists of mostly of EMPTY SPACE. If all of the nuclei should be shoved to the side, you'd fall right through it. Do you really think you're sitting on a chair right now?
                yes I am

                want to lose fat? get CI<CO
                >oh yeah?! But actually the "calories" label on food is wrong because it doesn't consider how much work your body has to do to properly ingest the calories. The body slurps up fat, but has to work hard on protein. The numbers are all wrong! Do you really believe that CI<CO is part of losing weight?
                yep. What kind of sophistry is this? Did you learn it from somewhere?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, the truth of a statement isn't determined by another's execution of your arbitrary challenges. I'm not going to go read a specific book and I'm not going to get the worst-paying PhD after gender studies just to learn about some specific wild animals that you can discount as exceptional. I'm doing fine, anyway. You're the fatty.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >wild animals eat themselves to healthy wei-ACK

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >wild

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                obviously in a zoo. and btw look at all the successful calorie counters in this herd

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >h*** d***
                reddit
                >they're overcomplicating it
                no, all of those complications are really there. The last one is even useful. What the antagonist is doing in that post is cynically using the complications to dodge statements that are obviously true. We need oxygen regardless of animals knowing that. I'm sitting on a chair regardless of the sub-atomic physics of a chair. You need CI<CO to lose weight regardless of subtleties in calculating the calories in food or body fat.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you need oxygen in, CO2 out
                This is not only correct, but exactly how it's taught in schools you uneducated ape.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you'd call me dumb for even thinking on those terms
                Nah you're moving the goalposts now.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                yeah that's a good one. literally true, yet so dumb it's joke fodder. and if you think it's dumb to say, the response is: "what, do you deny that the team with the higher score wins?!"

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.
                Intuitive eaters on suicide watch

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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
                What happens when this cow wants to get shredded? What does he do?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                i'd suggest switching species

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Answer the question.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                get strict about reading food labels like these ripped dudes

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Didn't answer the question. Also, what happens if these guys want to bulk up, what do they do?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So your totally unironic answer was: count calories. Cool. I accept your concession.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Ok, now what happens if they want to get bigger? What will they do?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Bulking without CICO autism is even easier than cutting.
                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. Add spices and shit to make things less bland after eating them repetitively.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                some people legitimately struggle to bulk up even though the math is obvious. what do you tell them?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Even if you forcefeed yourself to gain fat, the mechanism by which you gain fat is the same, it's insulin resistance, if you induce insulin resistance you will of course still need to required energy or rather building blocks to get stored as fat, this isn't breaking thermodynamics, but it doesn't mean cico was the primary cause. The reason you need to force yourself is because you're body is telling you to stop, it can't take anymore food, no more energy can go into the cells. So if you're eating clean food, the only way you get fat is by forcefeeding to induce insulin resistance. You can also induce insulin resistance by starving, you won't be obese you probably will have a worse body composition. Can you imagine that? Fit literally recommends eating disorders like binging and cutting, which both cause insulin resistance... It's like fit is filled with a bunch of masochistic self hating idiots.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Imagine arguing against the laws of thermodynamics and then pivoting this hard after getting dismantled.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You've already conceded that CICO works. There is nowhere else to go in this conversation. Good day.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Autist

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The cow takes drugs that changes it's hormonal profile to hold less bodyfat. It can also starve itself to lose bodyfat but it will also lose muscle so the relative bodyfat percentage won't change much.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I said,
                >avoiding pufas or whatever mystery ingredients they put in food.
                and yet, you mention take out food and candy, which is laden with pufas and mystery ingredients. And by mystery ingredient I mean whatever additive or filler they add. Eating whatever you want of potatoes, rice, chicken, beef, fruit, butter, tallow, and so on, will not make you fat. Hell, if you instead made the pizza yourself so you didn't need to eat seed oils, you probably still wouldn't get fat. Because pizza is just bread, tomato, and cheese basically, you can use olive oil or even butter, olive oil might make you fatter because of the higher unsaturated fat composition but butter won't. As for candy, if we take the good part of candy, that being sugar, and if you gave someone unlimited fruit, milk, honey, even added sugar which is just sucrose, they will not get fat. Being fat = insulin resistance = metabolic damage.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                If you're fat, it's gauranteed that your metabolically damaged, if you're a "healthy" bodyweight you can still be metabolically damaged, you probably just won't have a good body composition unless you exercise. Restricting calories is another way to cause metabolic damage besides pufas.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Every shark doesn't look the same.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                SHOW ME THE FAT SHARKS butthole

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >food is scarce in nature you mongoloid
                so why aren't they all starving? why are they naturally at healthy weights? ask anyone about scarce food environments and they'll tell you that population dips before you see skinny wolves

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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
                the fact this is your conclusion suggests that as usual, the CICO people don't even understand the debate

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, it's not just food scarcity. And there have been plenty of times in human history where food isn't scarce, but you don't have obesity epidemics.

                I just told you about how my cat doesn't get overweight despite having access to wet cat food all the time. He just eats till he's satisfied, and then he's done and goes off to do something else.

                He has a buffet of food all the time. Why doesn't he get fat when other cats would? The type of food he eats. It's the SAME thing with people. They have access to foods that are 1.) addictive, and 2.) not satisfying.

                When I initially stopped feeding my cat kibble, he clearly missed it and wanted that food back, but now that he hasn't had it for a long while, he's fine.

                This is just like modern people. Cut out the junk, and suddenly it's a lot easier to remain at a healthy weight. Your natural diet should not make you fat.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I can easily overeat if you give me shit I like like pork and pineapple.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                old problem: CICO is hard for fatties to execute faithfully
                solution: tell fatties to eat good food
                new problem: "eat good food" is hard for fatties to execute faithfully. Animals in the wild don't have to ask their corporate food tracker if a given product has seed oils, they just eat what they like!

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >>A healthy human eats according to their appetite and stays lean
                >lmfao this is literally HAES's muh intuitive eating you are a coping fatty troony.
                If you don't put a shit ton of sauces and spices on your food you will eventually get full and stop wanting to eat.
                Do you have a giant stomach or shit-tier metabolism? Back when I didn't work out I maintained 19 bmi and I was never hungry.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              exercise now
              it's the same problem as eating less, btw. your body will compensate by burning less at rest

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Maybe at the beginning but it will self adjust

                >You aren't going to be on a cut or a bulk forever.
                sorry for not putting this all in one reply. but yeah, the problem here is you don't go back to healthy-person maintenance. you go back to "obese person" maintenance. this is why the biggest loser has an awful recidivism rate: they all ruin their energy expenditure. it's harder to do maintenance when you have less outgoing metabolic wiggle room. CICO is true in that you can starve yourself and become smaller, but it doesn't address the underlying problem that your body wants to be fat

                If somewhat was fat is true that they will struggle to keep the weight off because they will want to eat more but literally all they have to do is not eat more, eventually their bodies will adapt.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >You aren't going to be on a cut or a bulk forever.
              sorry for not putting this all in one reply. but yeah, the problem here is you don't go back to healthy-person maintenance. you go back to "obese person" maintenance. this is why the biggest loser has an awful recidivism rate: they all ruin their energy expenditure. it's harder to do maintenance when you have less outgoing metabolic wiggle room. CICO is true in that you can starve yourself and become smaller, but it doesn't address the underlying problem that your body wants to be fat

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                your body doesnt want to be fat, its modern life that forces people in developed countries to adopt bad eating habits.
                if your body just wanted to be fat, obesity would have been always as prevalent as it is today. people are getting fatter all the time. you cant explain obesity rates going up over time with genetics.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It doesn't imply anything. It is a simple law of weight gain and weight loss. People attack it to sound smart. You can have a terrible sub-optimal diet and lose/gain the same amount of overall body mass as with an optimal diet. It is completely neutral. You should put this intellectual effort and time into learning/arguing about something more meaningful.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    That's the same thing though. That's like saying "measuring in centimeters is just not as good as measuring in meters and decimeters"

    like it's the same fricking thing, just a different unit.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's not because the macros are processed differently by the body.

      Your body almost NEVER burns protein for energy, and a caloric surplus made up entirely of protein does not lead to an increase in body fat

      >"In conclusion, it is evident that overfeeding on carbohydrate and/or fat results in body composition alterations that are different than overfeeding on protein. It is commonly believed that 3,500 kcal is equivalent to 0.45 kg (1 pound) of fat and that changing energy balance in accordance with this will produce predictable changes in body weight. However, the overfeeding literature to date does not support this assertion. Dietary protein appears to have a protective effect against fat gain during times of energy surplus, especially when combined with resistance training. Therefore, the evidence suggests that dietary protein may be the key macronutrient in terms of promoting positive changes in body composition."
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5786199/

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        post body

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous
          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you look like a troony

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Your body almost NEVER burns protein for energy, and a caloric surplus made up entirely of protein does not lead to an increase in body fat
        But it does lead to an increase of weight, CICO is not a diet program, stop treating it as one, moron.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        For people arguing about practicality, you sure seem to like talking about meaningless shit in relation to weight management

        good luck with the all-protein, perma-lean diet

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Gaining fat is not the only thing that makes you gain weight.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Body composition is not body weight. Holy shit you’re illiterate

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Actually it is really just CICO, food quality doesn't change fatloss

    Food quality impacts health though

    So yes you want your macros as part of your calorie intake to be good and healthy food choices, but its unironically irrelevant to bodyfat %

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >calorie labels aren't accurate
      >even if they were, you wouldn't know what your body absorbs
      >even if you did, you wouldn't know the food's impact on your calories-out

      CICO as a portion control strategy doesn't hold up under the most basic scrutiny. but people cling to it because it makes it easier to believe they just have to work harder or eat less and maybe not face the fact that we still don't know how to solve obesity

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >we still don't know how to solve obesity
        Processed foods
        Billionaires don't want to solve obesity, people who are addicted to eating goyslop don't want to either.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        HAHAHA it always comes down to this fatass cope
        PUT THE GODFAMN FORK DOWN TUBBY

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          you can always tell the point in the debate when the other person stops understanding and just starts throwing out words

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Fork. Down.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              callotherpersonfat.exe

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Post. Body.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >it's a shitty tool practically
    >bodybuilders have used it successfully and repeatedly for decades

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Cbum was struggling to make weight in the 2020 and 2021 Olympias where he was eating a tiny 1500 calories leading into the show. Once he switched coaches to Hany Rambod, he started eating over 2000 calories and got more shredded. Explain that. It wasn't an increase in physical activity. Your body will resist you if you eat too little.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Your body will resist you if you eat too little.
        I experienced a very similar phenomena with roughly the same caloric goals. 1400 kcal made me lazy, tired and cold. My workouts were terrible. On 2000kcal I lost more fat because I was more active in my daily life and my workout performance was better. It was absolutely a CO issue.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >I needed to eat more "calories" to lose weight, this proves CICO as a tool

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes. My "calories out" was impacted because my activity level dropped. There's a reason it's called "CICO" and not "Calories in and thats it"

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >yes, I needed to eat more calories to lose weight, this proves CICO

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

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

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        More roids pushed by a new coach.

        >It's the best tool practically.
        As shown by the incurable obesity crisis that plagues the world for decades now. You, Black person, are a moron.

        >that plagues the world for decades now.
        >world = america - fastfood and HFCS nation
        I wonder if there is a correlation...

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Put down the fricking fork u fat fricks, all these diets are just a complicated way of saying u're eating more than what ur body needs, if u teach ur body to live with hunger but still feed it only the necessary macros and micros it will not have any choice but to compensate with body fat, u lazy fricking idiots wanna blame the world for ur shit life style it's (you) who is the problem not cico

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Put down the fricking fork u fat fricks, all these diets are just a complicated way of saying u're eating more than what ur body needs, if u teach ur body to live with hunger but still feed it only the necessary macros and micros it will not have any choice but to compensate with body fat, u lazy fricking idiots wanna blame the world for ur shit life style it's (you) who is the problem not cico
      Nicely parroted from reddit, but wrong.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Eat less, fatass.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Dynamics systems are hard
    >Therefore CICO doesn't work
    moron tier logic. You calculate your calories AND track your daily weight. If you want to increase your weight, increase your average calories consumed. If you want to lose weight, decrease calories consumed. It's that fricking easy and that's all CICO is
    >Hurr durr I'm too fricking stupid to do a dynamic calculation
    Then don't. Just measure your fricking weight and calories. How are people this moronic?
    REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Calories aren't equal. Protein "calories" are almost never used by the body.
      See:

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

      It's not because the macros are processed differently by the body.

      Your body almost NEVER burns protein for energy, and a caloric surplus made up entirely of protein does not lead to an increase in body fat

      >"In conclusion, it is evident that overfeeding on carbohydrate and/or fat results in body composition alterations that are different than overfeeding on protein. It is commonly believed that 3,500 kcal is equivalent to 0.45 kg (1 pound) of fat and that changing energy balance in accordance with this will produce predictable changes in body weight. However, the overfeeding literature to date does not support this assertion. Dietary protein appears to have a protective effect against fat gain during times of energy surplus, especially when combined with resistance training. Therefore, the evidence suggests that dietary protein may be the key macronutrient in terms of promoting positive changes in body composition."
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5786199/

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        CICO is the answer to "how do I know if i'm going to gain/lose weight?" Not "what will be the composition of the weight that I gain/lose?" For that, you use a diet program, which CICO is not.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/auP8vdu.png

          You people are so stupid I can't even follow your train of thought. Seriously. Why is it so hard. Calorie, a unit of heat energy, is not that impossibly abstract. In your own words what is unclear about it.

          These idiots just hate the idea of tracking what they eat. It's the chud version of HAES intuitive eating, except instead of sweets they get to eat heckin steak and bacon.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        But they used, after the others are used. Calories in calories out.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >2024
    >morons still arguing about CICO
    Anybody that argues against CICO is fat until proven otherwise.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Shut up fatass.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >fatass
        We don't sign our posts here.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    if you want to make a cico troony seethe just show them how much calories are in a gram of uranium and ask them how much weight they are gonna get from eating it 🙂
    cico trannies are literally moronic because they havent figured out that calories are a fricking meme

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Calories are a unit of energy. They exist outside the context of diet and nutrition. The human body cannot digest uranium.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Why bother? It's obvious he's a low functioning autist.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Calories are a unit of energy. They exist outside the context of diet and nutrition. The human body cannot digest uranium.

          hahhaha holy shit you two are literally and unironically fricking moronic wow
          lets say the human body could digest uranium ok ? how much weight do you think you will gain after eating one gram of uranium lmao
          holy fricking shit
          youre literally below kindergarten tier mentally
          actual mental moronation, literal mental handicap

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Very low functioning.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              answer the simple question you smooth brained monkey
              cico is a mental illness

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                If you could metabolize uranium, whatever weight you gained would be a function of bioavailability percentage/absorption (you shit/piss out the remainder). If it's stored long term as fat or not depends on your energy expenditure and intake over the same period of time.
                Now I am waiting for the "haha gottem" low IQ false analogy you will reply to with this.
                That you gain a gram immediately when you ingest it? Yes, conservation of mass is equally fundamental as conservation of energy.
                Nuclear decay and fission?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Are you trolling or legitimately sub 80 IQ?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Do you morons think there are guys in white lab coats burning different foods in a bomb calorimeter and the result is what gets put on the back of the label?
        When a protein bar says 20g of protein on the back, do you think it actually weighs 20g on the scale?
        Those numbers are an estimation of how much you will actually absorb.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Those numbers are an estimation
          Yes, and?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Those numbers are an estimation of how much you will actually absorb.
          Not true at all. They don't burn every bit of food they make that part is true, but they copy what scientist did before. Why would you need calculate the calories of something that someone else already calculated before? You don't. You just measure the proteins, fats, and carbs and multiply by the already agreed upon calories for each.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      There are zero digestible calories in a gram of uranium, so other than the span of time it was sitting in your gut, you'd gain zero pounds from it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      CICO denialist like you simply don't understand that calorie is a unit of measurement. You morons are literally "arguing" something akin claiming walking is impossible because you move inches at a time but moon is also many inches away try walking to moon then so checkmate forward-inchers.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        moronic. A more apt analogy would be that cico is akin to telling people that "movement will make you lose weight". The issue is there are lots of types of movements which do different things (hormonal and metabolic effects), even some movements that don't help you lose weight whatsoever (going on a plane or a vehicle, twiddling your thumbs or your hands on a keyboard)

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You people are so stupid I can't even follow your train of thought. Seriously. Why is it so hard. Calorie, a unit of heat energy, is not that impossibly abstract. In your own words what is unclear about it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Humans don't burn food they digest it you braindead slug

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              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).

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Humans don't burn food they digest it you braindead slug

            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

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              If you have a certain diet for a long time, the metabolic reactions in your body eventually come to a stationary state, that stationary state could be a deficit, so you love weight, equilibrium, or surplus and you gain weight.
              Now, if you suddenly reduce your caloric input, you will disturb the stationary state and these chemical reactions will will seek a new stationary state, and that has to be one of either less weight gain or weight loss, depending on how severe the caloric deficit is. This is le Chatteliers principle in practice. Vulgar CICO might be a simplification of this, but the fact that disturbing a physicochemical system makes it react in the opposite direction is well established.
              eating less than you currently are eating will always move you towards weight loss. The relationship between the two might not be as simple as X less calories translating to equivalent loss in weight, but the overall trend is still the same

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        There are zero digestible calories in a gram of uranium, so other than the span of time it was sitting in your gut, you'd gain zero pounds from it.

        Are you trolling or legitimately sub 80 IQ?

        literal subzero iq morons
        if you gain one gram of weight after consuming trillions of calories in a single gram, why should you use calorie as a unit of measurment for tracking weight gain/loss when it obviously doesnt apply to the human body
        youre all so fricking moron holy shit

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >doesn't understand what a unit of measurement is
          >conflates nuclear fission with human metabolism
          >uses this as an argument to somehow argue against conservation of energy
          keep going I don't tend to interact with this segment of society, this is interesting

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >doesn't understand what a unit of measurement is
            I do
            >conflates nuclear fission with human metabolism
            I don't. CICO obviously doesn't apply to the human body.
            Keep coping and keep seething you are only proving me right that CICO morons are all mentally ill trannies.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Post body.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              It would make sense that I am talking to a plant right now that can cover the energy needed to type these things out through photosynthesis.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              dumb ass Black person, crack open a book on biochemistry and stop humiliating yourself online

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It would make sense that I am talking to a plant right now that can cover the energy needed to type these things out through photosynthesis.

                >no arguments
                Thanks for proving me right that CICO morons are mentally ill trannies.

                Post body.

                Sure, I don't train tho
                Your turn troony let's see that boy gyatt

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm 6'0
                Post body cico troony

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                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).

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I lose braincells with each of your post so whenever I see an anime picture from now on I ignore it, you're simply too moronic.

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

                >skin hue
                80-90IQ was an accurate prediction

                troony cope
                Too ashamed to post body ?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Your article cites the patients are on a caloric deficit lol. All that article is claiming is that fiber gives people more satiety lmao moron

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Fiber is counted in calories though CICOtard.

                Your article cites the patients are on a caloric deficit lol. All that article is claiming is that fiber gives people more satiety lmao moron

                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4639584/
                >At the end of the 8 weeks, weight and BMI further decreased in the group consuming the fiber-enriched diet (p<0.01).
                >an isocaloric diet supplemented with fiber-enriched products may improve measures of fatness and insulin sensitivity in healthy non-obese non-diabetic subjects.
                Read

                [...]
                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

                you monkey. I never said that eating less won't make you lose weight, just that saying CICO is everything is incredibly stupid

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >isocaloric

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, fiber is not counted into calorie total.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                He's been claiming that for a while now. He's probably some kind of midbrow moron who made a Google search on how calories are measured and saw a post saying it's done in a bomb calorimeter, which is of course not true at least for 70 years now. He's a moron who cannot fathom the idea that his body is based on physicochemical processes common to all life, and not a special unique snowflake

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because you don't understand what calories are. Everybody else does. I'm surprised you know how to operate computer.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Cows can digest fiber thanks to their gut bacteria. Humans cannot. Not a single carbon atom from fiber ever gets past your intestine.
                Muh cows and gorillas is a classic vegan troony talking point btw

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >skin hue
                80-90IQ was an accurate prediction

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Post body, mentally ill troony.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't train tho
                Clearly.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                ok post body 🙂

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You don't consume calories, you consume food which has energy measured in calories. Like you don't drink litres, you drink water which you measure in litres.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Actual unironic moron lmao
            >which has energy measured in calories
            Which doesn't apply to the human body. See

            Humans don't burn food they digest it you braindead slug

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The average IQ of this board must be 80-90.
    So many tards getting genuinely upset at an equation because they are too moronic to understand nuance.
    CICO is a fundamental property that follows from thermodynamics, you are not a plant that can do photosynthesis. You are a dumb gorilla Black person that lacks capability to abstract. In a more elegant would, you would not have access to the internet.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Are bots unable to read OP pics? This is basically what OP pic was saying

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You just fail to parse language. CICO refers also to the general weight loss advice that you will, not can but will, lose weight by upping activity and lowering calorie intake in the long run. It’s technically true, but often impractical. Everyone knows this because they understand that a 300 calorie a day diet is unsustainable but if this was good advice it wouldn’t be unsustaimable since it strictly adheres to the CICO principle. So that is their issue, with what it implies, not the formula.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >It’s technically true, but often impractical.
        So is the "just lift" to those that never went to the gym but want to get bigger, sure there is way more to that, but that's just to get you through the door and then you'll figure the rest once you understand the basics. What's the point of understanding macros, metabolism and all that jazz if you still are unable to even put the fork down.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Muh internet meme term
    Dude frick that, everyone knows what fricking works, eat your chicken and rice, drink your whey, go lift

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    blablabla I have been bulking and cutting just by changing -500 to +250 for years, it works like clockwork

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Cico is for fat asses that can't into moderation and for people that want to lose that last love handle

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Exactly, those who just need a little push only need to stick to the absolute basics regardless of nuance and will still see results, crazy how that works.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The funny thing is all these new weight loss drugs. They prove cico because all they do is make people not eat as much.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    My still living grandma eats supermarket pastry, fruit jam and plastic American stringy cheese every day, and is almost 90, in great health, goes on hours long walks every day and has a vibrant social life with the other church grannies. Always been thin all her life.
    Meanwhile my other grandma who lived in the countryside and had all these animals, garden and fresh vegetables, meat and dairy, and did all this labor all her life, has been fat all her life, multiple afflictions and is already dead for a few years now.

    Health and longevity are mostly genetic.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >goes on hours long walks every day and has a vibrant social life with the other church grannies.
      Yeah that’s literally “calories out”. Your granny is going to get fat as frick once she gets too old to go for walks

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Macro tracking and food quality is better than CICO
    No fricking shit sherlock. You're counting calories plus counting macros. Of course the more advanced version is better. What a moronic thread.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Love this argument, because nobody who does cico is saying you should lose weight by eating junk food.
    Obviously in a perfect world you would get your caloric deficit while also eating healthy food, we just point out that it is technically not necessary.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    God I love Enji

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just track what matters
    >calories in
    >morning weigh
    >adjust calories according to how you want your weight to move

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you want to lose weight, eat less than you currently eat, and move more than you currently move. If you want to gain weight, eat more than you currently eat, and move less than you currently move. It's the simplest goddamn thing in the world and you fat Black folk will find every excuse in the book to just not put your fork down.

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Cico is not about the quality of the food, is about the quantity, obviously healthy food is better than junk food but you will still gain weight on healthy food if you eat more than you need.

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I have dieted down and bulked up several times in my life. Counting calories along with managing other things such as macro and micro balance is the most surefire way of controlling your body weight and composition and anybody who argues contrary to that can suck my dick and seethe at this graph of my recent controlled weight gain.

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    preferential metabolism doesn't really impact CICO as a function of time. yeah, starting at glucose, uptake slows with carbohydrate complexity, but only to the point of indigestability - everything prior to that gets metabolized.

    so I don't really know what OP's point is, and I don't think it really matters on the whole. it's not like we can tune a PID for our feedatrons based on metabolic output, but we've got a decent overarching sense of the relationship between metabolism, caloric content, and rates of body mass change. we don't need like ooparts and ritual pseudoscience shit to make this make sense.

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It doesn't matter how complicated it is. Your body can handle the complications. All you have to do is eat consistently and then, and this is where everyone fricks up:
    If you don't like how much you weigh, change the amount.
    If you don't like how fat you are, change the macros.
    That's what everyone doesn't get. Calories is bodyweight. Macros is body composition.

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You can be on Mediterranean, paleo, vegan, carnivore, keto, low carb, high carb, iifym, fasting or eat whatever the frick you want but if you eat more than your required calorie consumption you gain weight, if you eat less, you lose weight.
    Some diets will make you look better than others but the same principle remains.

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Fiber doesn't inhibit the absorption of macros in any real way. It slows the absorption of carbs, but you still absorb them all, just slower. And has almost no effect on protein. It can inhibit the absorption of micros, but not really by that much

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Didn't read.
    Eat less or stay ugly and die early, you fatty.

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Macro tracking and food quality is better than CICO
    Yeah.
    But fat morons can't be trusted to count calories accurately. You really think they're going to track multiple macros?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      a lot easier to count carbs than calories. not that i'm a ketalard necessarily but it's objectively less mentally taxing to just avoid carbs

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    people still have access to good food, and they decide not to eat them. There's little difference between telling fatties
    >just eat 2200 kcals per day!
    and
    >just eat these filling, healthy staples instead of ice cream
    both are things that people just know are better, and they decide not to. the problem is not whether this or that fitness advice is passed around, the problem is that people use food as a compensation for some other problem in their life, or they don't actually give a shit about being lard asses (except for limited amounts of time hence yo-yo dieting)
    trying to placate the sickness of society with fitness advice is pissing in the wind

  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You cannot count Calories Out. You can make crude guesstimates, with calculators informed by assumptions that you neither know nor understand. But you cannot count it. Your "CICO" approach to diet is not precise and mathematical, you're just eyeballing it same as everyone else while refusing to pull all the levers that are available to you to actually pump up CO because you're a lazy contrarian. If you haven't gotten the memo yet on why "CICO" is stupid even after all this discussion trying to carefully explain the difference between "technically true" and "useful", then you've been filtered. KYS

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      OP here, glad to see someone who understands the difference between "technical" and "applicable".

      CICOtards are just desperately clinging onto their defense of fitting ultra processed foods into their diet

  34. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Your body burns calories, sometimes more effectively than others. There were no fat dacau or auchwitz survivors because their bodies burned more calories than they took in. That is how weight loss works.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Your body literally does not burn calories, it uses macronutrients. Some more readily than others. It almost NEVER burns protein for energy.
      See:

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

      It's not because the macros are processed differently by the body.

      Your body almost NEVER burns protein for energy, and a caloric surplus made up entirely of protein does not lead to an increase in body fat

      >"In conclusion, it is evident that overfeeding on carbohydrate and/or fat results in body composition alterations that are different than overfeeding on protein. It is commonly believed that 3,500 kcal is equivalent to 0.45 kg (1 pound) of fat and that changing energy balance in accordance with this will produce predictable changes in body weight. However, the overfeeding literature to date does not support this assertion. Dietary protein appears to have a protective effect against fat gain during times of energy surplus, especially when combined with resistance training. Therefore, the evidence suggests that dietary protein may be the key macronutrient in terms of promoting positive changes in body composition."
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5786199/

      Overfeeding on protein doesn't even lead to fat gain lol.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Protein cannot be stored, there's no protein equivalent of fat lol you will catabolise it and piss urea.

  35. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    That can be said about everytthing that involves math. The problem is, it's a tool to make the common man to divine the most obvious shit there is, that you need to stop eating to lose weight. Any prolonged intermittent fasting with micronutrient and salts replenishment is more effective than that bullshit book about metabolic processes no one understand or cares about, and you'll achieve your weight loss goals better and with less suffering if you just fasted.
    >wahh but I exercised today!
    Eat a whole chicken in a sigle meal and shut up.
    >but my blood glucose!
    You mean the thing your liver makes out of fat? Have you even tried to wonder why you're still fat?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      After moving in with a couple fatties and observing what they eat, I absolutely do not believe in CICO. they've both got a good 30 pounds to lose but they literally barely eat. They eat a little junk food and maybe one small meal a day's worth of real food. They're overweight.

      Meanwhile I eat 4 eggs with veg and cheese and toast with milk/protein powder for breakfast, slurp whole milk throughout the day and have lots of real food. I'm skinny/fit.

      CICO is corporate propaganda to encourage the consumption of junk food and to make people scared of eating a lot of healthy food everyday.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        If you're eating carbs you're not losing weight. You need very little of it. Even if you're in a 70% deficit, you eat a piece of bread or an apple, you're replenishing all your glucose and not burning fat, or very little fat.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Extremely moronic post.
          Why would God allow us to store carbs in fat form if he didn't want us to use that fat in times of need?
          Your claim can be debunked by the experience of every member of this board who has lost weight in a non keto diet. And that includes me lmao.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Of course you lose weight on calorie defiict. You'll lose more faster fasting. So, why dont you tell us how much weight have you lost and how long it took? You'd probably achieve it on a fraction of the time with rolling 72s, but no, you have no impulse control, so here we are

            Absolutely wrong

            [...]
            >store carbs in fat form
            Also wrong
            Excess sugars only very slowly get converted into fat, and that only happens when they can't be stored as glycogen, because your body is full up on glycogen. However eating carbs and fat at the same time is a disaster, as pretty much all the dietary fats get stored

            Not an argument

            This is so goddamn stupid lol.
            >Yeah eat only fat and protein and your body will break up the fat to make up for the glucose youe body consumes!
            >But if you eat a little bit of exogenous glucose, even at a deficit, your beta oxidation will grind to a halt for no reason and you will not burn fat!
            Insanely stupid

            >Yeah eat only fat and protein
            > beta oxidation will grind to a halt for no reason and you will not burn fat
            Not what I said, I said you lose weight faster by fasting and you'll decelerate weight loss by eating carbs
            >Insanely stupid
            Go have your zero sugar soda, fatty

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          This is so goddamn stupid lol.
          >Yeah eat only fat and protein and your body will break up the fat to make up for the glucose youe body consumes!
          >But if you eat a little bit of exogenous glucose, even at a deficit, your beta oxidation will grind to a halt for no reason and you will not burn fat!
          Insanely stupid

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Absolutely wrong

          Extremely moronic post.
          Why would God allow us to store carbs in fat form if he didn't want us to use that fat in times of need?
          Your claim can be debunked by the experience of every member of this board who has lost weight in a non keto diet. And that includes me lmao.

          >store carbs in fat form
          Also wrong
          Excess sugars only very slowly get converted into fat, and that only happens when they can't be stored as glycogen, because your body is full up on glycogen. However eating carbs and fat at the same time is a disaster, as pretty much all the dietary fats get stored

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah "they" don't lose weight lol. You are lying little lardass. Put the damn fork down for once

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I am not fat lol.
          My roommates literally barely eat, but they eat shit, and they are fat. I eat way more but more protein and almost no junk and I have visible ribs when stretched and some veins.
          CICO seems wrong 100%

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You don't see what they're actually eating

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          They are both broke and stay in, I am unemployed and stock the fridge and know what's in there. We hang out a lot. They literally barely eat.

  36. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, OP. Anyone who has ever been on a diet knows this. There's only a small few who are in denial.

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