Disprove CICO in six words or less ITT Posted on April 19, 2023 by Anonymous Disprove CICO in six words or less ITT
thermic effect of food
/x/fags give me a curse to lob at OP so he dies tonight
Digits and OP gets hit by the curse of 'cado, dooming him to endure 'cado's eternal satanic mukbang for all time after his inevitable death at the hands of boogie in his sleep tonight
And just like that OP get fucked
Wow it worked
moron moron moron moron moron moron
Hormones effect the body way more
Lazy excuse to eat like shit
It's most effective when you eat clean tho?????¿moron
Most people who push CICO always say shit like “you can eat donuts and pizza everyday as long as it fits your CICO”
It's correct but incomplete. It's like saying that good financial management is about having more income than expenses.
I would say it can work but not for the reasons given, and is incomplete in that you have to do other shit as well for it to work.
It works because the fat you wear comes from the food you consume, if your hormones decide to store that food as fat, it doesn't work because it has little to do with calories, which are a measure of heat energy as measured by a bomb calorimeter. And because different foods impact your hormonal system differently, provoke different insulin and leptin/ghrelin response. Saying that a piece of red meat and a cup of sugar arbitrarily measured at a 1000 kcals have the same metabolic effects is simply insane. But that's what cico bros and retarded vegans would have you believe.
>Saying that a piece of red meat and a cup of sugar arbitrarily measured at a 1000 kcals have the same metabolic effects is simply insane.
No one claims this. What they do claim is that they will cause identical changes to body mass. Of course there may be changes in the calories out portion which could change the outcome, but this is simply the out portion changing, not the in portion, primarily due to differing changes in metabolism, NEAT, TEF, etc. Could you lose weight eating 500kcal of sugar every day and nothing else? Yes, but it would be horribly unhealthy. The point is that CICO simply states that you need to consume less energy than you expend in order to lose weight. That's the only thing it governs, nothing else. Other axioms will govern health and performance, and those will determine what foods you should consume so that you can lose weight appropriately without health concerns, muscle loss, immense hunger, etc, which is why no one is dieting on white sugar, but instead people diet on red meat, eggs, dairy, fruits, veggies, etc because those allow you to fulfill CICO without those aforementioned problems.
Textbook thermodynamics is too simple here
CIRCUMCISION IS CRUCIFIXION OBVIOUSLY
CICO is false. Op is fag.
Why are fat people so hungry?
more body mass to feed
Hormonal dysregulation, unironically. Yes, the fatties are right about the hormones, but are retarded even about that, because its very, VERY simple to change your hormonal balance back to a more reasonable state.
You are not a bomb calorimeter.
Water is not good for you.
Microplastics and hormone disruptors in everything
Steak does not equal corn syrup
Im autistic idk thermodaynameys'n'shit my bro
Hormones? Haha those aren't real silly.
Why does vegetable oil need shills
Micros and hormones are more important
For sale: wedding dress, never worn.
Cico: Requires you to eat healthy, fucktard.
Carrots are more filling than cola.
You should not drink your calories.
Freezing cola and eating it doesn't make it better
lipogenesis peaks at fifteen grams
morons tongue my anus
Done in four
Protein metabolizes less efficiently than fat
CICO is exclusively for fat people.
why does cbum count his calories?
Why don't thin people count calories?
cbum gets to 5% bodyfat for stage I don't get why you'd ask that
Is cbum the only lean person?
right so if 100% exactly of thin people don't follow CICO then it doesn't work?
>CICOtard tries to understand endocrinology (impossible)
I do understand endocrinology. I just know it well enough to know that hormonal changes from diet is not enough to have a significant impact on weight loss and gain
We dont burn energy via combustion
who claims this?
Everyone, Its fact. The energy is stored in chemical bonds within the fat and carbs etc. Then the fat or carbs creates waste which is sweat piss shit and breathed out. So you lose weight via C02 and H20 leaving your body.
no, I mean who claims the human body combusts the food? I know how digestion works
The calorie itself lol do you not know the history of the calorie?
You do know why they measure the calorie by burning it right? As you said in
>The energy is stored in chemical bonds within the fat and carbs etc
burning the food releases this chemical energy, that's what fire is. Burning the food measures the energy at 100% efficiency if all energy of the food is being utilised. We are just making the assumption that the body is pretty much extremely efficient at extracting the energy from food, which it should be.
>which it should be
But its not lol and is explained in the video.
sorry bro i'm not watching your 15 minte video, if you can't explain it yourself I assume it's some midwit bullshit
Its actually interesting anon, why would you not want to learn about calories? Youre in a calorie thread?
I'm on IST, not youtube. You can tell me the content of the video if you like it
In short that calorie is an outdated model that opens up more questions than it answers and that we need an actual accurate model on how humans use energy .
>we need an actual accurate model on how humans use energy
>we just need a cure for cancer
>we just need to end world hunger
ok, are you going to do this? CICO is accurate enough to work for weight loss and gain
Id love to but im not a scientist, there are many doing that now . Cal in cal out is an oversimplified way of looking at how the bodies energy systems work, Ive used it and have never had problems with it. But it isnt 100% accurate for everyone and isnt 100% accurate in the explaination of how the bodies energy systems work in general.
Give up already gay.
Give up what? In wanting to understand the bodies inner mechanics in better detail? Never.
>driving a petrol car is not 100% efficient, so I walked
If you did the same cals of just fat, just carbs, just protein, all three with give you hugely varied body composition at the end of the diet...why if its just cal in cal out? According to your model you should look the same which you wont, you cant even predict howd you look using the cal in cal out model unless you are using strictly predetermined macro % for the cals used in the diet....as in not using cals in method and modifing it further .
The body doesnt extact 100% of the energy, cant use 100% of the energy and it extract effiency varies wildly between fat carbs and proteins and then again within each group depending what type of fat , what type of carb and what type of protein source will give you a different energy extraction efficiency result.
Cal in cal out is an over simplified way of looking at the situation, which isnt bad but its not perfect, and why would you settle for anything less than perfecting knowledge?
and I suppose "just eat fat and protein bro" is way more measurable and perfect?
I dont demonise carbs or fats or any food group anon. Ive never advocated to never eat something. Each one has a role , aslong as you use each one for its actual role within the body you wont run into any problems hopefully!
This is a short and cool video that actually briefly explains the history of the calorie ...
Fuck off back to your containment board / reddit gay.
I am a fat, weak gay
I dont get the problem with improving the calorie model .
Try bulking on Uranium
>eat one gram of Uranium
>20 billions calories in
> zero calories out