>most popular health and nutrition podcast claims CICO is bullshit
>genetics account for 80% of bmi
Are they correct?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
>most popular health and nutrition podcast claims CICO is bullshit. >genetics account for 80% of bmi
No
CI and CO doesn't mean anything since digestion is individual for everyone. Just because a lab rat gets fat on twinkies doesn't mean you will. And if anyone of you actually knew how calories are "measured" in a lab (literally burning food and then mouse shit), you wouldn't believe in junk science like CICO either.
But none of you cares, because you are autists and autists fall for all and every propaganda.
tl;dr: It doesn't matter how many calories that piece of bread has, what matters is how many calories your body is able to extract from it.
post body fatty
body fatty
>makes fun of autism
>is autistically wrong
There's nothing worse than autistBlack folk who are wrong.
>t. doesn't know how calories are measured
Look it up, sperg-o. Thene njoy the cognitive dissonance bc ur autism won't allow u to admit uve been wrong.
>tl;dr: It doesn't matter how many calories that piece of bread has,
Yes it does
>what matters is how many calories your body is able to extract from it.
Barring serious gut pathologies, this number does not vary significantly between individuals.
How is it that every RCT that actually measures exactly how many calories people consume finds that consuming calories in excess of BMR + activity leads to weight gain, and that consuming a calorie deficit leads to weight loss?
Your model can't explain that.
tl;dr CICO may be a simplification of the biological processes within the human body,but its a simplified model that works.
there's a study that I'm having a hard time finding that showed that a 1000 calorie surplus led to a gain of anywhere to like 10 lbs to 25 lbs of weight over a certain time period, it was highly variable.
It really depends on how active you are at baseline. A more anxious and fidgety person or someone with ADHD is going to have a huge amount of NEAT daily.
>It really depends on how active you are at baseline.
Of course it does, that's the CALORIES OUT part.
How did they make sure that the 1000 calorie surplus was actually a 1000 calorie surplus? You can't just eat 1000 above your BMR and call it a day, because your activity levels can easily turn that 1000 surplus into a 700, 500, 200 surplus, or even energy balance.
CICO is measurement. First you fatties said scales are bullshit and smashed them en masse. Then you denied the fact that you eat way too fricking much. Now you're denying calories, which is an amalgam of macronutrients that the body uses to create muscle and fat.
You people hate objective reality and physical standards. Yes, CICO isn't the whole story, but it doesn't change the fact that all the Calories you're stuffing In your face are the same Calories going Out into your fatbodies. CICO.
Please have a nice day instead of spreading your dumb fricking bullshit for people to read.
it doesn't matter if you get more calories from food than others or if your metabolism slows down on a cut. your bmr cannot fall below 0 and you can always eat less.
b8
>Just because a lab rat gets fat on twinkies doesn't mean you will
Yeah you will, lardass.
The human body is extremely efficient at extracting calories from food assuming you don't have any disease or genetic defect.
CICO works perfectly for healthy people, and the ONLY people who claim otherwise are fatass coping morons desperately trying to preserve their fragile egos and genetic rejects.
CICO will help you lose a small amount of weight acutely, but will not help you long term. Pretty much every study on diet shows this. People with long term weight loss have much more drastic changes to their eating and exercise habits.
I used to weigh 270 lbs at 5'11, 37 bmi, I lost 105 lbs, to about 24 bmi. You don't lose 105 lbs and keep it off by doing CICO. The type of food that you consume has to be much different.
/fast/ is consuming no food and they're doing fine lmao
and fasting actually goes along with what I'm saying, if you are not consuming foods that are causing hormonal dysregulation which leads to more hunger, then you are not being motivated by your body to eat more.
And I am actually implying that you are less hungry if you don't eat and you are more hungry if you do eat, depending on the quality of the food you are eating, of course.
Food doesn't cause hormonal dysregulation that forces you to eat, you just have an addiction and need help.
>Anecdotal evidence from a fatass moron
That's great that something worked for you and all, but claiming all other methods are invalid based on your limited experience really exposes you as a filthy fricking moron and this is why nobody is taking you seriously.
It's a proven fact that fatass morons with poor impulse control, like yourself, have lower IQs and it's really showing.
>People with long term weight loss have much more drastic changes to their eating and exercise habits.
Yes, people with long term weight loss eat fewer calories and then DON'T relapse into eating at a chronic surplus.
Dumb shit, the fact that some people lose a bit of weight and then fall back into bad habits doesn't disprove CICO, it reinforces it.
>You don't lose 105 lbs and keep it off by doing CICO. The type of food that you consume has to be much different.
You literally do. The VOLUME AND TYPE of food you consume has to be much different.
CICO, or better "energy balance" is occuring behind the scenes regardless of if you're managing it actively or passively through volume eating or any other strategy. i've been counting calories for over a decade, and can manage, forecast and alter my bodyweight without effort.
Wrong. I lost the weight by not consuming what I was when I was fat, just less of it. I lost the weight by adopting strategies that increased the quality of the food I was taking in, allowing me to be as satiated as I was before I started losing weight, with much less calories.
It is only because you people are severely autistic that you think I am saying something that is actually counter to what you are saying.
>>You don't lose 105 lbs and keep it off by doing CICO
>I lost the weight by adopting strategies that increased the quality of the food I was taking in, allowing me to be as satiated as I was before I started losing weight, with much less calories.
How fricking dense are you?
In the same breath you are saying that CICO isn't how you lost weight, and then saying "But I ate less calories"
again, it's the fact that you have autism that you think I'm actually saying something completely different to what you're saying.
I'm not the fricking moron that is saying "CICO doesn't work" and "but i ate less calories and lost weight" lol
I don't think CICO means what you think it means.
Taking what you eat now and just eating less of it. That's stricly CICO. Studies show that this method of dieting is the least likely to result in long term weight loss.
That still doesn't disprove CICO, it just proves that the fattys in the bullshit study require psychiatric help.
It means when applied to people, it's not very effective, which means it's a bad weight loss strategy. Some things look good on paper, but when put in practice suck.
Just because fat goblins fail at not eating doesn't mean CICO failed. It just means we have a population of possessed fat reprobates who turned away from God.
If people can't adhere to a diet, then that diet is worthless. If 5 out of 100 people obtain health benefits from consuming mercury, that doesn't mean that the 95 other people that died from it just did it wrong.
If people can't adhere to a diet that means those people are failures with zero willpower, it doesn't mean the diet failed them. By blaming the diet it just proves you're a narcissistic moron looking to blame anything but yourself.
CICO isn't a diet, it's a law of thermodynamics and a form of measurement.
CICO is not a diet in the same way that Newton's Laws of Motion are not catapult designs.
CICO is the principle that underpins all weight loss diets, it is not a diet in and of itself.
Here's a diet idea: Stop eating long enough to fry your hunger receptors. Do rolling 48s for 2 weeks, then go back to calorie reduction.
fasting is an accepted strategy, since you aren't consuming foods that will ultimately make you hungrier and your body has mechanisms in place that will regulate your hormones properly in the presence of fasting.
You can then use the hunger of fasting to consume healthier nutrient dense foods since one of the ways your body tries to make you eat is by making any type of food taste good. Instead of getting the dopamine hit of fatty sugary food every few hours and the subsequent blood sugar spikes and drops.
Except Twinkies aren't impossible to resist. You're just an addict who doesn't have the willpower to downregulate his ghrelin receptors to resist a Twinkie. I'm currently doing OMAD and I eat french fries and nachos that I fried in lard. Self control is not impossible.
>Taking what you eat now and just eating less of it. That's stricly CICO
Hahahah OK so you're just fricking moronic.
CICO is not a diet. It does not imply "keep eating what you eat now and just eat less of it".
It's simply a statement about energy balance.
It's not a method of dieting, it's the mechanism by which ALL weight loss diets work, regardless of what foods they recommend or disallow.
You are arguing in relation to an extremely narrow definition of CICO diets where any diet that results in eating less calories is CICO no matter what else it is.
Anon is arguing in relation to a broader definition where diets that focus solely on counting calories which are food neutral are less effective (not effective at all) compared to diets that focus less or not at all on counting calories but rather on changing what food is eaten and when.
You are fricking stupid for needing to have this explained to you. In addition the extremely narrow position you have taken is also fricking stupid because nobody cares about CICO except as a tool for weight loss so any discussion/definition of CICO which does not ultimately derive/link back to effectiveness at achieving sustained weight loss is pointless. Your definition is so narrow that it does not allow any kind of distinction to be made between calorie restriction diets and food substitution diets because "food substitution diets are still CICO you fricking dumbass" even though calorie restriction diets and food substitution diets are demonstrably different - one is more effective than the other.
Two things which are different cannot be the same.
That's why your position is fricking useless and stupid and so are you.
>CICO will help you lose a small amount of weight acutely, but will not help you long term.
I went from 17 stone (238lb) down to 11 stone eight years ago just by counting calories, ate tons of junk food the entire time and still do just stopped whenever I hit my calorie limit for the day. Zero other changes to diet and never gone over 12 stone since
congratulations on being the 1 in 20 people that don't fail on diet.
It's not hard though people just go wrong by stop counting after they lose the weight. In fact I think where people really go wrong is they listen to diet bullshit and think they have to eat boring healthy food forever and say frick it I'll stay fat, if you let yourself eat junk food just in moderation it's easy
You're not making an argument against CICO though, you're just positing a measurement problem. This is like saying gravity didn't exist before Newton gave us a formula for it. By tracking your activity and weight and varying food inputs you could even approximate a ratio between your TDEE and extracted energy content of different foods, with no calories involved whatsoever. Very autistic and time consuming, but the math isn't even that hard.
This is absolute shit tier bait
CICO is bullshit because your body tries to fight you every step of the way due to survival mechanisms, but bmi isn't 80% genetic, it's just bad behaviors and poor self control. You will lose weight if you starve yourself and cause yourself great pains, you just need the willpower to do so and that's where the cico argument becomes more bullshit, because your body will do things like increase hunger hormones that drive you insane or reduce NEAT to burn less calories. Ultimately you lose or gain weight by CICO, but there are many things that factor into it like hormones / mental instability. 100 calories of fat / carbs / protein have much different effects on your body, especially in terms of hunger.
post body fatty
"Hunger hormones" doesn't invalidate CICO or any of Newton's Laws.
And that's exactly what I said, but humans are not machines.
The CICO argument is the basis for most diet plans that have the most failure rates. It's no surprise that diet plans that manipulate the type of food going into your body (like keto / low carb) are some of the most successful diets.
If a calorie is a calorie, you don't need to count your macros, you just need to hit your calorie goals.
Please post a diet based on calorie reduction that DOESN'T recommend cutting out highly processed/refined junk foods and consuming a variety of whole foods
The point of meme shit like the Twinkie diet video isn't to prove that eating a low calorie diet of junk food is healthy, but that as long as you are in a calorie deficit, you will lose weight.
and my argument is that the guy that lost weight on the twinkie diet caused himself considerable pain to do so, pain that most people are incapable of dealing with.
If you believe that it's all just CICO, there's no point to hit certain macros like protein intake or fat intake, since the calories are all equated. If you think you can physiologically gain something by eating fats or proteins or by reducing carbs, then CICO is not exactly the entire truth.
>If you believe that it's all just CICO, there's no point to hit certain macros like protein intake or fat intake, since the calories are all equated
No CICO promoter has EVER said that the kind of food you eat doesn't matter for health. How fricking dense are you? The Twinkie diet guy was proving that calories are a REAL measurement of the energy you can get from food. He was not promoting it as a weight loss strategy.
Find me ONE single CICO promoter who doesn't tell people to eat high quality foods when eating at a calorie deficit. Find me one single CICO promoter who tells people that calories are the only thing that matters about diet.
You should be eating a healthy balanced diet regardless of whether you're trying to gain or lose weight. But then you should pay attention to the principles of CICO if you want to lose or gain weigh, and adjust the portions of your diet accordingly.
Frick you, you strawmanning fat c**t. Post body you disgusting blobman.
>No CICO promoter has EVER said that the kind of food you eat doesn't matter for health
And yet this thread is full of posts like this one
and this one
denying the impact that factors other than CICO have on diet plan adherence.
We know that taste is a preference and that sweet foods like cake basically don't fit into any kind of decent diet as more than an infrequent luxury. If you really fricking love cake then too fricking bad.
The brainlet response to this issue is to just say "cultivate more willpower lmao". It's advice that has never worked and never will work - who can make straight that which God has made crooked? It's just a petty and coercive exercise of ego. But that's fine, because that's the POINT. Nobody is trying to help fatties here. Everyone is just trying to "explain" why they're fat in the most degrading terms as a way of establishing that because they are not fat they therefore are not those things.
Fatties are fat because they're lazy. I'm not fat. Therefore I'm not lazy. Or, at the very least, no matter how lazy I am I am still better than a fatty. But you can't express it in those terms because 1 you're probably smart enough to see that that's bad logic so if you said it like that you couldn't believe it and 2 that's a little bit too much like bullying and you need to be able to phrase your platitudes in a way that's acceptable to society.
Thus any explanation for fatness that isn't laziness has to be resisted. Accepting such an explanation would defeat what you're trying to do here because your goal is not to help fat people lose weight or solve the obesity public policy issues. You don't need accurate information about reality because you're not trying to accomplish anything. You're just here to exercise a grandiose self-concept of your own virtue at the expense of everyone else.
I only ever managed to successfully lose weight when I stopped listening to IST. None of the advice here works.
Newton's laws doesn't mean that nuclear reactors don't work because Issac Newton wasn't aware of uranium. Of course there are more factors to a nuclear reactor than classical thermodynamics. But it doesn't mean the law is violated.
I like how his central point completely flew over your head because of how severely autistic and maladapted you are.
Why would I read the rest of this delusional scientific measurement-denying spew of horseshit typed with fat fingers beyond the point I was (You)'d?
Sure. But knowledge of the law is of zero utility without knowledge of how to put it into practice.
>"just eat fewer calories"
Doesn't work. It's too simplistic of an analysis, like saying "just build a reactor lmao oh and don't let it get too hot." You can't break ground with just that information - you'll fail. And you can't lose weight with just the advice to "eat fewer calories" because you will also fail. "Eat fewer calories" doesn't provide enough guidance to deal with all the obstacles that will come up when you attempt to do that in reality.
>"you should be able to deal with those problems yourself"
Sure. It's not like any of this is rocket science. But every time a cohort hits a failure point some will drop out, and furthermore if we just gave people more information they wouldn't fail so often. Why should everyone have to solve their obesity through trial and error? Just give the proper advice from the start.
And, to be fair, it's not like nobody's doing that. Very few people literally advocate calorie restriction only. I'm just responding to the overly reductive arguments being presented by multiple anons in this thread, and in every thread that comes up on this topic. It links back to what I wrote here:
Nobody comes into these threads to have an argument. They just come here to dunk on fat people. The average IQ of IST has dropped so precipitously over the last decade or so that I barely even bother posting here anymore because every reply I get is super fricking moronic. I'm just really bored tonight.
>Nobody comes into these threads to have an argument. They just come here to dunk on fat people.
If you seriously didn't find any valuable information in this thread, there's really nothing anyone could tell you.
most of it is post body fatty, you are and addict and fat, and twinkie study guy.
There's really little to no actual information being offered by the proponents of CICO here.
You've said absolutely zero disproving the utility of CICO.
This. This thread is garbage. You either accept CICO as law, and getting ripped and having control over your bodyweight, and should hide this shitty thread. Or you don't, stay mediocre and deluded, and should hide this thread and get the frick off my board because you'll never make it. Please end this moronic thread.
I've been posting on this website for 15 years anon. "muh law of thermodynamics" is not new to me. It might be to some people though.
On a side note, I beg for death. Leave while you can.
>Fatties are fat because they're lazy
But this is true.
Every fat person I know either does ZERO and I mean ZERO exercise, or eats exclusively processed/prepared food and doesn't make their own food, and they eat ridiculous portions.
>You're just here to exercise a grandiose self-concept of your own virtue at the expense of everyone else.
Gluttony is a sin. Moderation is a virtue.
>It's advice that has never worked and never will work - who can make straight that which God has made crooked?
It's disgusting when people deny individual responsibility and accountability and declare fat people to be victims of circumstance.
>Every fat person I know either does ZERO and I mean ZERO exercise, or eats exclusively processed/prepared food and doesn't make their own food, and they eat ridiculous portions.
Sure but that's not the sum total of life.
I knew a really fat guy once (I mean super fricking fat, but he was also like 6'5, guy was just huge). He did zero exercise and ate tons of food, none of which he cooked - his wife made it for him and he also had lunches out almost every day with work (he was a pretty senior consultant so he was rarely actually in the office on any given day - he was usually meeting people over lunch or out on site). Anyway the point is that when it comes to food and exercise yeah, he was what I would call "lazy".
On the other hand he worked all day every day including weekends, made huge amounts of money, and was almost singlehandedly responsible for saving a huge property development company from collapse due to cashflow issues by mediating with angry suppliers, reviewing expenses, and prioritising invoices. It's not like that's brain surgery but the sheer volume of work meant that it was a lot for any one person to do and he did all of it because the company wanted to keep it secret from their own employees that they were taking loans to pay salaries every single week. I wouldn't call that lazy.
>It's disgusting when people deny individual responsibility and accountability and declare fat people to be victims of circumstance.
Indeed. So don't get mad at me for holding you accountable for your ignorant, reductive, and wrong view of the world. Your self-serving narrative about how great you are is laughably transparent and relies on, essentially, your willing decision to subject yourself to a self-lobotomy. Nobody is moronic enough to believe that all fat people are inherently lazy but here you are saying it to forestall the crushing contempt you would feel for yourself if you accepted the reality of your lifetime of delusional self-aggrandizement.
That's a lot of words to say nothing at all.
I’ve been doing my first cut for a week, I started counting cals for the first time ever and try to hit my protein. I’ve lost weight already. I don’t get how people can dispute it, just try it. It clearly makes you lose weight. If I continue doing this I can basically predict exactly when I’m going to have lost the expected amount of weight
>and try to hit my protein
why? a calorie is a calorie, there's no point to counting your macros if all calories are the same. If you believe eating more protein has a certain physiological effect on your body, then not all calories are the same.
to maintain muscle mass. If I didn’t care about that I could eat whatever the frick I wanted. I don’t care at all about your semantic bullshit I’m saying if you eat a deficit you’ll lose weight. I’m not arguing that you should eat 1500kcal of dog shit a day because it’s the same thing
>there's no point to counting your macros if all calories are the same.
Who are you quoting? Which CICO promoter has said that your macros don't matter for health?
Frick you, you strawmanning fat c**t. Post body. Let us see the results of not believing in calories.
>Which CICO promoter has said that your macros don't matter for health?
You say as you quite literally bring up the guy that ate twinkies to lose weight. Are you dumb?
>You say as you quite literally bring up the guy that ate twinkies to lose weight. Are you dumb?
Are you? Weight loss =/= health you dumb frick
Twinkie guy proved you can lose WEIGHT on a junk food diet, he did not make any claims about how HEALTHY a way to lose weight it would be. Quote me where twinkie guy said that the twinkie diet was a HEALTHY way to lose weight. You can't, because he didn't.
If you've been conflating WEIGHT LOSS with HEALTH this whole time then that might explain why you're so averse to CICO.
Why do you think the term "dirty bulk" exists?
>he did not make any claims about how HEALTHY a way to lose weight it would be.
You are actually dumb and never read what that guy said.
>Quote me where twinkie guy said that the twinkie diet was a HEALTHY way to lose weight
I'm not quoting you, dumbass, I'm quoting him. He literally said he improved his health markers as well, such as lipids and metabolic panels.
Fricking moron.
>The Twinkie Diet: In an illustrative study of one, Mark Haub a professor of nutrition at Kansas State University, demonstrated to his students that he could lose 27 pounds in just 10 weeks by eating a high-sugar, high-fat, low calorie diet. Professor Haub ate Twinkies, Little Debbie snacks and other sugary fare every three hours, instead of eating meals. To add variety to his dessert regimen, he also chowed-down on Doritos, sugary cereals and Oreos. Despite eating mostly junk food, (plus one protein shake per day), he limited his intake to 1800 calories per day, about 800 calories less than necessary to maintain the body weight of a man his size.
The only health markers he claimed improvements for were the ones directly tied to body fat, which NO SHIT improved because he LOST WEIGHT because he was in a CALORIE DEFICIT.
Show me where Haub recommended this diet, where he claimed it was a healthy way to lose weight, where he claimed there would be no adverse effects from his high-sugar diet.
He NEVER claimed that calories are the only thing that matters for health, only that they are the determinant of WEIGHT LOSS which he PROVED with his diet.
What exactly is your counter to his experience anyway?
You are actually just delusional.
Heart disease is the leading cause of death, which is tied to cholesterol levels. If you improve your cholesterol levels, you will live longer.
What exactly are you trying to prove here?
The dude ate a calorie deficit and lost weight. Because he lost weight, his serum cholesterol levels improved, because excess body fat is the primary cause of high serum cholesterol, not dietary cholesterol.
What exactly are you trying to refute? What have I said that you think you are disproving here?
Have you forgotten that (You) are the dumb homosexual that was saying CICO doesn't real?
>Have you forgotten that (You) are the dumb homosexual that was saying CICO doesn't real?
>Ultimately you lose or gain weight by CICO, but there are many things that factor into it like hormones / mental instability.
Where did I say that?
OK
>CICO is bullshit
>cholesterol levels
levels the lowest on record yet heart disease is at levels highest on record. not sure about the correlation m8.
Compared with LDL-C <100 mg/dL, LDL-C categories 100 to 129 mg/dL, 130 to 159 mg/dL, 160 to 189.9 mg/dL, and ≥190 mg/dL were associated with a significantly higher risk of CVD death, with hazard ratios of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.1–1.7), 1.3 (95% CI, 1.1–1.6), 1.9 (95% CI, 1.5–2.4), and 1.7 (95% CI, 1.3–2.3), and mean reductions in years free of CVD death of 1.8, 1.1, 4.3, and 3.9, respectively.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.034273
>Is that goyslop I can't eat?
>AAAH I'M GOING INSANE
lmao at your life
Hormones don’t make your body magically retain 500kcal of fat when your body requires 500kcal worth of energy to do something. Hormones can’t break fricking thermodynamics and make your body generate energy out of nothing, if you do something it requires energy and that comes from food or stored fat
please point out the part in my post where I say that, just screenshot it and highlight it.
I lost 40kgs/88lbs in a year. The whole "hunger hormones" is complete and utter bullshit, it works the opposite way.
The intestines adapt their bacteria to accomodate what you eat. If a shortage occurs, they will crave what they are used to getting FOR ABOUT THREE TO FIVE DAYS UNTIL THE INTESTINES RESET THEIR BACTERIAL COMPOUNDS.
When losing weight you LITERALLY only have to control yourself for the first one or two weeks, after that the cravings stop and are gone forever. I was offered some fries a couple weeks ago and stopped after three, because I literally didn't like them. Fat me would have inhaled that bag in two seconds.
Everyday caloric expenditure can be reduced in phases of extreme hunger - but we're only talking about 200-400cals a day. The human body doesn't just magically run on nothing because it wants to.
everything you said is absolutely wrong.
The reason why you were able to reject those fries is not because you lost your taste to them, it's because you've conditioned yourself to think fries = bad.
I lost 39% of my bodyweight about 5 years ago and I still have to watch myself around such foods. What you are saying is not only wrong, but incredibly dangerous.
You just gotta stop eating for 48 hours and you'll feel the most hungry you've ever felt in your life, and then nothing after that lol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
At the end of the day, your diet doesn't matter as much as your ACTIVITY
If you actually MOVE YOUR BODY and EXERCISE, you can lose fat and gain lean mass on almost any diet.
Obsession over diet is for lazy c**ts who don't have the willpower or discipline to actually MOVE THEIR FAT FRICKING ASSES
Here's the cheat code: Be hungry.
How do you withstand spicy food? Use hot sauce.
How do you get drunk less easily? Drink alcohol.
How do you avoid sunburn? Go outside.
How do you become less sensitive to caffeine? Drink coffee.
How do you perceive hunger less? Stop eating.
You have an adaptation mechanism called downregulation. Use it.
I've lost 10kg/22lbs by doing CICO.
How do you explain that?
the argument against CICO isn't that you aren't able to lose weight on it, it's that you are less likely to adhere to it.
Do you agree that eating 2 cups of peas is harder than 1 cup of ice cream? Calories are roughly equated here. The peas will help you stay fuller for longer and take up much more volume in your stomach, leading to decreased hunger over time.
The argument is that you can make yourself more comfortable and be more likely to lose weight by employing strategies based around the type of calories you are eating.
Isn't that self-explanatory?
I mean you will lose weights if you only eat at McDonalds every day if you are on a deficit.
Honestly after my rolling 72 hour fasts, I can eat a single sour cream & onion Pringles chip a day without giving a shit. The idea of downregulating ghrelin receptors needs to go mainstream.
Back when I did dab hits without any diet plan, I'd skip meals as my tolerance went up. You just ignore the weed munchies a few times and your ghrelin receptors melt away. Then you're just forcing yourself to eat your pre-workout so you don't die at the gym.
I used to think the obesity crisis was entirely due to vaccines causing metabolic disorders, but now I realize it's mostly due to stupidity, mainstream news and completely giving up in life and intellectual persuits. Whether vaccines cause that is another story.
>Do you agree that eating 2 cups of peas is harder than 1 cup of ice cream?
You won't feel full after a cup of ice cream and hence stuff your face with more food, fatty
calories are equated. You are more likely to eat after eating 130 calories of ice cream than 130 calories of peas. The quality of the food you eat is directly related to the amount of hunger you feel and thus the motivation to eat more. 130 ice cream calories have a different physiological impact on your body than 130 pea calories. A calorie is not a calorie.
>130 ice cream calories have a different physiological impact on your body than 130 pea calories. A calorie is not a calorie.
As an absolute unit of measurement, yes it is.
Doesn't have anything to do with CICO dumbshit
You can cut on mcdonalds, it's just psychologically harder.
You can boost your metabolism with supplements like iodine, magnesium, boron, b12, b3, b2, etc. but you fat pieces of shit would just use the extra metabolism to eat more food, so it doesn't matter.
You say CICO is bullshit but even in optimal conditions you're just attempting to justify your sick addiction.
Why do we bother arguing with estranged non-cico believers? Why not leave these (likely) fat quacks to suffer of their own stupidity? Imagine being a flat earther caused you literal harm..
Fat autists should get a toxic metal screening and fix your mercury and aluminum poisoning with chelation therapy.
CICO still applies, but you're too fricking broken and stupid from the neurological metal toxicity to reduce your Calories In.
CICO still applies in picrel. The Calories Out went to cancer tissue.
Just because CICO has factors doesn't mean you ignore them, you use the objective measurement for your troubleshooting.
99.9% of the time, you're just a fat piece of shit justifying your addiction.
I hate fat people so much it's unreal
Denying CICO as an objective measurement is denying that fat people eat too much. And vice versa. Pure delusion.
>the majority of americans have dysgenic genes
I mean I sort of agree, but thats not why they're so fat.
Nikocado Avocado is Ukranian
>my feelings are proof CICO is bullshit
my natural bmi is literally 6+ points lower than my actual weight and the minute I stop force feeding myself it plummets straight back down.
If not eating is physically painful for you, it still doesn't disprove CICO, but you might have a fat soluable toxin that needs to be removed.
Now I know why Klaus Schwab wants to ban 90% of farming and starve you homosexuals to death.
It's true that vegetable oil is unregulated industrial waste contaminated with mercury and other toxic metals that may cause a cycle of storage and release into the bloodstream, but this still doesn't mean calories consumed and spent cannot be measured
>be told to eat less
>eat more
boom, CICO disproven
You know, there are studies that shown that farm animals can gain more weight on the same amount of calories by feeding them soibeans instead. The animals store more fat, and they move less.
And this still doesn't disprove CICO.
Think about it.
Genetics count bit not in the way they claim. If you are genetically predisposed to greed, addiction and laziness, then you're likely to struggle.
Yes and no.
The problem we have is that choices dictate BMI but genetics dictate choices.
morons and smoothbrains cannot cope with the second part of that sentence, and so we end up in this situation where all of the evidence points in one clear, uncontested direction and yet we're still unable to take action because of people who choose not to believe not based on any kind of reason or even self-interest, but simply based on personality and identity.
If you're fit, and fitness is a product of virtue, then you're virtuous - and they're not. You're BETTER than them. That's a powerful incentive to believe things even when they're false. So long as your false beliefs have no actual consequences why WOULDN'T you believe them? If I got a hundred dollars every time I said the sky was red I'd say it every waking moment of every day. The sky is never going to turn red, and I get free money. Harmless.
Some people get a free hit of feel-goodsies every time they say (phrases to the effect of) fitness is a product of virtue and there's no consequence for doing so, so they do it over and over and over again.
Except there is a consequence for doing so. It's just that they're not the ones who suffer that consequence - as if my hundred dollars doesn't just come out of the ether but is taken from someone who needs it. So long as I never see that - so long as I never KNOW that, and I can choose not to know if I need to - then I can persist in my belief that what I'm doing is harmless and profitable. And this is even more pernicious because the people who say things like "fitness is a product of virtue" aren't lying, they're just wrong. They really do believe it. It's not something you can prove or disprove as easily as glancing upwards, like the colour of the sky is.
Basically in short my point is that there is nothing redeemable about humanity and if I had power over all the ambulatory meat we call a society death camps would look like summer camps. Tips fedora.
so genetics have changed?
The genetic argument makes more sense in the context of humans adopting survival strategies when food was scarce to over consume food to make up for periods of no food.
In this sense, it is genetic and modern times are the only times in the history of human civilization where we have such easy access not only just to food, but to food that is incredibly calorie dense and hyper palatable.
So the genetic argument is actually more plausible in this context since it doesn't depend on trends we've seen only in the last 100 years or so, it depends on what has happened to our food supply over the last 100 years or so.
>experts tell ppl to eat goyslop more often
>they do
>they start spraying aluminum on them and injecting it into their children while demoralizing them
>they continue eating the goyslop every other hour
>General Mills, Kelloggs, Keebler, Post start airing commercials "Breakfast is the most important meal of the day!"
>they eat the candy as soon as they can after waking up, breaking their brief 8 hour fast
Romans were OMAD, they took digestive health seriously and subsequently were immune to hunger due to having downregulated ghrelin
>Romans were OMAD
lol roman meals were a big social occasion they would lie on couches and drink and graze for hours
I gave you all the secrets other CICOgays don't talk about, take it or leave it.
Hmmm let's unpack this ok chuds? Y'all racist science deniers think fat folks are plus size because they eat too much, but they diverse metabolism can produce calories out of nowhere to stay big, beautiful and fight white oppression. Take the vaxx btw #smashfirstlawofthermodynamics
how have you not figured out that the most popular things are almost always tremendously wrong? look at fricking democracy
im going to listen to IST advice and lose weight by eating more
lets fricking go cico is bullshit i always knew it