NEWSFLASH: CICO PROVEN FALSE

It's over for the calorie clowns.

https://davidludwigmd.medium.com/when-scientific-paradigms-collide-360b5408a066

  1. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    So why don't we just take the fatties and put them in thermal generators? Clearly their bodies require no calories in to maintain their calories out, so they can be a wonderous new clean energy source.

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      Are you illiterate?

      • 3 days ago
        Anonymous

        Are you a fat retard? If you lost all your fingers in an eating contest, how high would you be able to count on all your chins and toes?

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      >thermal generators
      Also known as bonfires?
      If only

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      YEAHA LETS FUCKING KILL THEM

    • 2 days ago
      Anonymous

      we should do this but not for any altruistic reason but just because i want to see them dead

  2. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    If you think 2000 calories of processed foods will react in your body the same way as 2000 calories of wholefoods/vegetables then you are a certified fool.

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      Calories are a measure of energy, they are literally all the same fucking thing. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. If you consume 2000 calories of sugar (simple carbs) and 2000 calories of whole wheat (complex carbs), you are literally consuming the same amount of energy. It doesn’t matter if one converts faster or slower. 2000 calories is always 2000 calories. How those calories are spent will largely be determined by how much you move.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        >Calories are a measure of energy
        So? The question is if it is a valid measure and if all calories are actually interchangeable.

        • 4 days ago
          Anonymous

          It's a valid measure. No-one with any credibility or standing in nutrition science or fitness has ever claimed that all calories are interchangeable. This is a strawman.
          If CICO adherents thought all calories were interchangeable then they wouldn't eat protein would they?

        • 4 days ago
          Anonymous

          No, the body is very complex and it's not a simple A minus B equals C equation, but nor is there a mechanism for fat fucks to remain fat fucks (or get even fatter) if they're continually in a caloric deficit, as many of them claim they are.

        • 3 days ago
          Anonymous

          how the fuck else would you measure the energy amount of food?

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        NTA but thermic effect becomes significant when you look at a whole grain vs simple sugar.
        What the Anti-CICO cultists ignore is that these differences in how foods are digested and utilised can only ever lead to your body gaining FEWER calories than the food contained, not more.

        It takes more energy to digest 2000kcal of whole wheat than 2000kcal of sugar, but 2000kcal of sugar can never become 3000kcal of energy in your body.

        • 4 days ago
          Anonymous

          2000kcal of sugar can cause -500kcal/day metabolism resulting in +500kcal/day stored fat.

          • 4 days ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, but you still had to eat 2000kcal of sugar and not burn 2000kcal of energy in order to gain that fat.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        alright bro go eat an entire dominos pizza and then let me know how motivated you are to smash a new pr at the gym the same day, 2 hours later.

      • 3 days ago
        Anonymous

        >You are literally consuming [...] calories
        The United States high school curriculum is not thorough enough to allow the public to engage in discourse.

      • 3 days ago
        Anonymous

        >How those calories are spent will largely be determined by how much you move.
        And by what they are. If it's not giving you energy to do said movement and protein to recover from it then it will lower your caloric needs and obviously make you fat. This doesn't disprove cico though because in the end you got fat by taking in too many calories.

      • 3 days ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah water is wet dude. The question is how the body handles different fuel sources, whether it has more or less energy efficiency depending on the source of fuel and other factors. All evidence seems to indicate it does.

      • 3 days ago
        Anonymous

        The idea that what you eat can change how your body works doesn't disprove CICO.
        If you drive your car at 60mph you will get better mileage than if you drove at 120mph. You can burn the same amount of fuel but travel a different distance, because driving at 120mph is less efficient than 60mph.
        Does this disprove that your car needs fuel?

        the vast majority of people, like 99% of people, aren't weighing out their food to the gram and meticulously counting every calorie they consume. This kind of lifestyle is unsustainable and only people with mental disorders can do it for a long period of time. This means that most people eyeball about what they're eating.

        This model proposes that your body will encourage you to consume more food in every way that it can. There are also definitely foods that will make you feel better and fuller and more capable of performing and fighting hunger pains.

        No one has ever said that 100 calories of carbs is somehow going to do something magical to your body vs 100 calories of fats.

        2000 calories of Goyslop/HCFS vs Lean meats and vegetables. If you think you will lose any weight with the goyslop you are deluded (maybe if you are used to eating 4000 calories perday, the average person it is useless).

        Insulin spikes and hormonal changes will be affected by goyslop.

        the vast majority of people, like 99% of people, aren't weighing out their food to the gram and meticulously counting every calorie they consume. This kind of lifestyle is unsustainable and only people with mental disorders can do it for a long period of time. This means that most people eyeball about what they're eating.

        This model proposes that your body will encourage you to consume more food in every way that it can. There are also definitely foods that will make you feel better and fuller and more capable of performing and fighting hunger pains.

        No one has ever said that 100 calories of carbs is somehow going to do something magical to your body vs 100 calories of fats.

        >i cant eyeball whole foods so I must eat goyslop like doritos because the calories are on the bag and easy for me to see

      • 2 days ago
        Anonymous

        >Calories are calories
        >Eat a rod of plutonium for my upcoming bulk
        >Never have to eat again

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      The idea that what you eat can change how your body works doesn't disprove CICO.
      If you drive your car at 60mph you will get better mileage than if you drove at 120mph. You can burn the same amount of fuel but travel a different distance, because driving at 120mph is less efficient than 60mph.
      Does this disprove that your car needs fuel?

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        Underrated

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      the vast majority of people, like 99% of people, aren't weighing out their food to the gram and meticulously counting every calorie they consume. This kind of lifestyle is unsustainable and only people with mental disorders can do it for a long period of time. This means that most people eyeball about what they're eating.

      This model proposes that your body will encourage you to consume more food in every way that it can. There are also definitely foods that will make you feel better and fuller and more capable of performing and fighting hunger pains.

      No one has ever said that 100 calories of carbs is somehow going to do something magical to your body vs 100 calories of fats.

    • 2 days ago
      Anonymous

      Purely in terms of energy, yes, it is. There are other differences, of course, mainly what other nutrients are in it and how easy it is to digest, but whether you eat 2000 kcal of pure sugar or 2000 kcal of veggies makes no difference to the total weight gained.

  3. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    just eat less lol
    >but im hungry
    stop being a bitch lmao

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      Best weight loss push I ever got was somebody condescending saying "God forbid you're not full"

  4. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Calorietards can't explain this.

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      Fat people under report how much they eat, and people are far less active than 20 not to even mention 60 years ago. CICO is the foundation of any sustainable and successful diet, only retards say you can eat pure sugar on CICO. almost everyone recommends a diet of whole food, low sugar, no goyslop, combined with exercise. Fatties can argue against that all they want, but they are still fat and I’m not, and I do all those recommended things

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        It's not self-reported, calorietard.

        Wow calorietards are retarded. Incredible. Amazing.

        • 4 days ago
          Anonymous

          Post body

        • 4 days ago
          Anonymous

          >It's not self-reported, calorietard

          https://i.imgur.com/uang1bs.png

          Nice try, calorietard.

          >Mozaffarian D. Perspective: Obesity — An Unexplained Epidemic. Am J Clin Nutr 2022, 115:1445–50,

          Do you admit CICO is false now? It's hard to reconcile your ideology with the data.

          >Nice try, calorietard.
          From the study
          >Energy intake is based on 24-h dietary recall data from NHANES
          Self reported data

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      I can explain it, someone opened Excel and made a graph full of bullshit data.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        Nice try, calorietard.

        >Mozaffarian D. Perspective: Obesity — An Unexplained Epidemic. Am J Clin Nutr 2022, 115:1445–50,

        Do you admit CICO is false now? It's hard to reconcile your ideology with the data.

        • 4 days ago
          Anonymous

          Your own article concedes that energy intake is under reported by overweight people and that US physical activity levels are too low. Try reading it instead of posting a graph next time.

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      Link to the original study and thanks.

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      Can you please elaborate what this graph is saying?

  5. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    >CICO proven false

    I can't even think of way to satirise this.

    >NEWSFLASH: LIGHT IS ACTUALLY DARK

    Anyway, read the sticky and report these posts.

  6. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Calories make up the most important part of a dietary regimen. then what you eat (clean foods), then macros, the meal timing. That is scientific fact.

  7. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    CICO is obviously true because the first thing ketolards brag about with their fat diet is how they can "eat infinite calories." Normal people don't even think about that but the ketolard only has that beaming through his brain 24/7. That's why they brag that they're *only* 235lb dropped from 265lb and shit. You're still fat.

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      Infinite calorie keto diets work. More proof that CICO is false.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        >"the weight came back"
        So it was lost before it returned then, no doubt when he started piling on more calories.
        >"couldn't stick to the diets"
        And there it is. Not a shred of evidence against CICO here.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        >without hunger or counting calories
        >ketolard implies infinite calorie diet
        I guess there's no way to prove what he ate and didn't eat because he didn't keep track.

      • 3 days ago
        Anonymous

        >More proof that CICO is false
        Post body, fattie.

  8. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Carb insulin model is bunk. It was the basis for Atkins which just led to the populace getting even fatter

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      >t. vegan

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        >T. Projecting copelord
        Carb insulin model is shit. You can do keto, high carb, fucking McDonald's for all I care. If you're in a caloric deficit, you will lose fat.

        High satiety, low calorie foods are the easiest way to lose weight though. Potatoes, veggies, chicken, berries, etc. Eating less carbs will make you hold less water which can cause more rapid weight loss initially, but it's not actually fat loss. Just less glycogen in the body so the muscles and liver hold less water.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        What's wrong with eating vegan? My brother has been vegan for 15+ years and is in great shape.

        • 4 days ago
          Anonymous

          Most vegans are just virtue signallig picky eaters who weren't comfortable telling the chef to recook their meal.
          You can be healthy without meat but it's extremely rare as you need to be autistic about it. I also doubt your bro is vegan, probably vegetarian. Vegeterians have an easier time because they can eat dairy, eggs etc.
          Almost every 'vegan' i've met is a vegetarian, not a vegan. The hardcore vegans are retards and the type of people i mentioned at the start. Veganism is their personality and crusade.
          t. not vegan or vegetarian

  9. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Gonna wait for the academic consensus

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      >consensus
      >con
      hmmm

  10. 4 days ago
    Anonymous
    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      >Layne Norton
      Not gonna watch.

  11. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    What about that study where the guy just ate 2000 calories of Twinkies every day?

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      That never happened.

  12. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Calories are a measurement of heat energy. So therefore it's not a measurement of the energy you will derive from food you consume. You are not a bomb calorimeter. You basically get no effective energy from protein until a point since it's being used for repair. Calories in and out is totally debunked. Jesus christ this board never collectively improves knowledge on any topic just stuck with the same threads and responses endlessly

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      >You basically get no effective energy from protein until a point since it's being used for repair
      Wrong. There are ketogenic and glucogenic amino acids, that is, amino acids that the body can metabolise into ketones or glucose for energy use.

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      protein is broken down into component amino acids all the time for energy especially when you have an excess of protein the body doesnt need

  13. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Not a single body posted

  14. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Calories are not the sole indicator of a good diet.

  15. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    >Some cunt that's written clickbait articles for the past 8+ years
    Yeah, he seems real trustworthy OP.

  16. 4 days ago
    uvo11

    >medium.com
    >What if overeating doesn’t make you fat?
    >gobbledemoron chart

    Even Kuhn talk can't convince me to read further.

  17. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    So if I only eat 500 calories of pure sugar I will not lose weight????????

  18. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    >gluttony and sloth with a side of starvation as self-flagellation model
    >Carbohydrate and Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid - Adipocyte Insulin Signalling model
    it is a mystery

  19. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    why don't ketofags just eat at a caloric surplus (on keto of course) and track their weight progress over the course of 3+ months to finally prove that calories don't matter?
    hmm...

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34352821/
      does that work for you

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        wow, a self reported study of just 1 individual confirms my biases. SCIENCE!

        • 4 days ago
          Anonymous

          cute cope wanna go throw rocks into a lake and eat some homemade ice cream

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        Great study, except by only tracking "weight gain" and not measuring calorie expenditure and not measuring LBM/FFMI we can't use this n=1 case study to say anything of substance.
        Perhaps the fat gain was similar on each diet but during the low-carb phase, glycogen levels were lower leading to less water retention. Perhaps the high carb diet was high in refined carbs which have a low thermic effect.

        Because this study doesn't track calories OUT we can't use it to draw any inclusions about CICO.

  20. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Instead of autistically counting calories or going Keto I'm just eating one meal a day. I can't possibly eat more than my TDEE in that meal. Tell me how this is bad IST

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      It's great for weight loss, just don't pig out.

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      I can still eat more than 2500cal of HOMECOOKED MEAL when doing OMAD. My apetite is just too big so I always have to check my cal intake to see if I am in my maintenance.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        Thankfully my gf won't make me a meal that big. The hardest thing is avoiding fast food when she has a "headache".

        • 4 days ago
          Anonymous

          >Thankfully my gf won't make me a meal that big
          I cook seperately for me and my gf so if I am not paying attention, I cook shitload for myself and then eating it all. But I weigh my food from time to time to be sure.

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      It's alright for losing weight but you have to go pretty hard to fit 120g protein into one meal. You should be lifting while cutting, otherwise it'll take you forever to look passable, and you should be eating protein while lifting.

  21. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    >CICO proven false!
    Stop the cap! Bruhhhhh!

  22. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    I am not clicking that link.

    CICO works, because physics. If you eat less calories than you expend, you're gonna lose weight, period.

    However, it would agree that CICO is crude model and may be missing some important aspects of weight loss for human beings.

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      CICO doesn't work. It claims to be based on physics like Hollywood movies are based on true stories.

  23. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    I know it works for a fact because I lost 40 pounds doing CICO. I still drink a shit load of Mr Pib and eat bread and I'm loosing several pounds a week. As long as your on a deficit you will loose weight. If your on a deficit and don't loose weight, you counted wrong which is easy to do or your food has some labeling bullshit going on.

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      After two years you'll be back at starting weight.

  24. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    Just put it to bed already

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      NPCs will never give up the lies.

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      Every question ITT answered why are you dumbos going in circles

  25. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    >another fatty cope thread
    yawn

  26. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    Didn't read a word, hit the weights fatty.

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      >illiterate
      Typical cico believer.

      • 3 days ago
        Anonymous

        >CI changes CO, a little

        Uh ok. It's a cute academic discussion but this isn't hard. Eat a fuckload less and you'll lose weight

  27. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    Rates of obesity going up don't disprove the underlying theory, only the practical measures being taken
    Which is obvious, because you tell a fat cunt "eat less" and they don't do it - that doesn't mean it wouldn't work if they did
    Obesity will only be cured when a pill that shreds fat is created - but would-be fatties will still die prematurely because they'll simply down these pills by the bucketload and use them to be able to binge food that will kill them anyway
    It would be cured if we can eugenically remove the fat-causing genes from the pool, meaning the genes that make fatties unable to refuse food, the weakness genes

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      Hasn't heard if DNP

  28. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    >

    [...]

    IS this the same retard spamming the threads about MUH HECKING CALORIES!?

    Nobody is claiming each calorie type is the same at all, its still calories in calories out, you fucking gay.

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      Tautologies are meaningless. Believing that a tautology is explanatory is stupid and wrong.

  29. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    And important part of a model is prediction
    The carb-insulin model is an absolute joke at predicting weight gain.
    >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26638192/
    "Substantial weight loss was achieved overall, but a significant diet × IR(insulin resistant) status interaction was not observed"
    >https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673150/
    "In this 12-month weight loss diet study, there was no significant difference in weight change between a healthy low-fat diet vs a healthy low-carbohydrate diet, and neither genotype pattern nor baseline insulin secretion was associated with the dietary effects on weight loss."

    CICO on the otherhand keeps predicting needs and weight gain/loss
    >https://www.jacc.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.08.050
    "Under isocaloric conditions, VLCHF and HCLF diets result in similar weight loss"
    >https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/1/23/4596906
    "Under planned isoenergetic conditions, as expected, both dietary patterns resulted in similar weight loss and changes in body composition."
    >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0939475310000323
    predicts weight maintance and loss
    >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11029975/
    similar weightloss even with wildly different macros, but its isocaloric

  30. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    >In 1960, an average man in the U.S. was able to maintain a weight of about 165 pounds without constant dieting. Today, that average man weighs about 195 pounds. Restricting his calories to produce a 30-pound weight loss would cause severe hunger and his metabolism would slow down, setting the stage for weight regain.

    But this is just fucking wrong. If he lost 30lbs (real weight, not water and muscles) his body would not require as many calories to maintain his size. The "hungry" being referred to here is probably talking about being in a deficit in order to lose the weight. It's written like the man is going to need to starve himself in order to maintain that 165lb weight.

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      and its hilarious how they think the metabolism slows down, but in studies the effect is about 50kcals after a major weightloss. its absolutely hilarious to think 50kcals would hinder your life, in any way. thats just 3 less spoonfulls from your dinner.
      They also act like your body does not adapt to your new intake

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      and its hilarious how they think the metabolism slows down, but in studies the effect is about 50kcals after a major weightloss. its absolutely hilarious to think 50kcals would hinder your life, in any way. thats just 3 less spoonfulls from your dinner.
      They also act like your body does not adapt to your new intake

      • 3 days ago
        Anonymous

        >When you go back to the same diet that made you fat in the first place, you gain weight again!
        >You burn more calories when you have a hundred pounds of extra tissue for your body to keep alive than when you don't!
        These are shocking revelations to the keto cultist.

        • 3 days ago
          Anonymous

          >believe cico
          >can't read a simple chart
          typical calorietard

          • 3 days ago
            Anonymous

            Do you know what a metabolism is? It's literally just how many calories your body burns to maintain it's current size. It's not some magic process that determines how fat you are. Losing weight means the body requires less calories to maintain it's smaller size. Therefore the "metabolism slows down". Most of the people in the chart have other problems causing them to eat so much. It's not genetics.

          • 3 days ago
            Anonymous

            >left chart compares weight gain after six years with no other factors
            >right chart compares metabolic rate before and six years after weight loss with no other factors
            Where am I wrong? What data are you seeing that I'm not? Am I just not using enough Ketocultist Magical Thinking?
            Literally all those charts prove is that people are bad at sticking to diets and that people with more body mass burn more calories than when they have less body mass.

            • 3 days ago
              Anonymous

              Maybe it's just basic English literacy you're having trouble with. What do you think the word
              >expected
              means? How would someone calculate an expected TDEE? Every CICO believer should be able to answer this.

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                you dont need an 100% accurate measurement of TDEE to be able to lose weight with CICO.
                whats funny is that most CICO people know this, yet still lose weight with CICO, and its still being used in research as the standard measurement of energy intake and expenditure, and its still accurate enough to do it well, consistently
                And all the anti-CICO people do is refer to some absolute insane, unrealistic scenario. that has no basis in reality to try to disprove it.

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                Nobody in history has ever succeeded with CICO. Everyone that claims otherwise is suffering from premature celebration. 2 years after starting a CICO diet you'll be back at starting weight.

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                >NOOOOO you can't lose weight on CICO, you just wait, you're gonna get fat again!!!!
                >Just wait!!! Any minute now!!!

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                Are you done söyboy replying and ready to have an actual discussion?

  31. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    CICO was never even proven true it was just forum broscience for years but so was nonsense like cholesterol being bad and fibre being essential.CICO and IIFYM are relics of 2000s broscience, good riddance. We just still have morons like Layne Norton still going on about IIFYM no matter how many times he is proven wrong.

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      >We just still have morons like Layne Norton still going on about IIFYM no matter how many times he is proven wrong.
      see

      And important part of a model is prediction
      The carb-insulin model is an absolute joke at predicting weight gain.
      >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26638192/
      "Substantial weight loss was achieved overall, but a significant diet × IR(insulin resistant) status interaction was not observed"
      >https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673150/
      "In this 12-month weight loss diet study, there was no significant difference in weight change between a healthy low-fat diet vs a healthy low-carbohydrate diet, and neither genotype pattern nor baseline insulin secretion was associated with the dietary effects on weight loss."

      CICO on the otherhand keeps predicting needs and weight gain/loss
      >https://www.jacc.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.08.050
      "Under isocaloric conditions, VLCHF and HCLF diets result in similar weight loss"
      >https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/1/23/4596906
      "Under planned isoenergetic conditions, as expected, both dietary patterns resulted in similar weight loss and changes in body composition."
      >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0939475310000323
      predicts weight maintance and loss
      >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11029975/
      similar weightloss even with wildly different macros, but its isocaloric

      sometimes you should just check google scholar before you say something you got no clue about. there are so many studies that uses CICO and theyre so easy to find.

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      Layne is probably the dumbest PhD holder. Dumber than affirmative action minorities. Whatever school he went to is a joke and the whatever field he got a degree in is a joke too.

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      Okay retard

  32. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    It doesn't real matter how accurate CICO is. It's probably pretty close to the truth but who cares. If you eat sufficiently less, you're going to lose weight.

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      Imagine someone told you they have an identical twin who eats exactly the same amount of food as them, with the same macros. Their twin is skinny, but they are fat.

      What would you tell the fat twin? Eat less and move more? That's clearly wrong. The fat twin has a hormonal problem that isn't fixed with restriction.

      • 3 days ago
        Anonymous

        >What would you tell the fat twin? Eat less and move more?
        Yes. Maybe he has to eat even less than his twin and move even more than his skinny twin. Oh well. Life's not fair. He should also go to an endocrinologist, but at the end of the day, if he wants to get skinny, eating less will do it.

        • 3 days ago
          Anonymous

          The correct answer was to change the type of food he's eating. Even if the macros are the same, powdered or blended food causes a different hormonal reaction.

          Calories are a smoke screen. It's a lie used to prevent people from identifying sugar and flour as sources of obesity.

          • 3 days ago
            Anonymous

            >powdered or blended food causes a different hormonal reaction.
            maybe you should stop refering to that retarded mice study. we actually got human metabolic ward studies that proves otherwise

            • 3 days ago
              Anonymous

              First of all, there's no similar study in humans.

              Secondly, a study in mice is sufficient to prove CICO wrong. CICO claims to be a law of physics. If it is proven wrong in a mouse study it's wrong in humans too.

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                CICO isnt about the laws of physics, cause humans arent a closed system. why cant anti-CICO and CICO people stop spewing this nonsense. its like you all failed physics 101

                we find plenty of findings in mice studies that never carries over to humans. only people who dont read research think they do. mice studies arent evidence for what happens in humans, theyre used to see what may need to be further studied in humans. please look up hiarchy of research credibility. this is litterally research 101

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                CICO theory doesn't exclude mice. If it's proven wrong in mice (it was) then it's wrong (it is).

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                you say it is, cause you actually dont know shit about research. dont know how the hierchy of credibly works, dont know how poorly mice studies transfers to humans.
                id be surprised if you have been reading research for more than 6 months
                whats hilarious is that you completely ignore human studies in favor for mice. cause it fits your view. you use one mice study and think it trumps all the human studies.

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/KJY2dIB.jpg

                CICO theory doesn't exclude mice. If it's proven wrong in mice (it was) then it's wrong (it is).

                forgot to add, theyre not regular mice, theyre genetically modified mice, and some variations are breed or inbreed for certain traits. you think think this is a good model for humans is a joke

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                Same laws of physics, bro. Nothing about CICO excludes genetically modified (identical twins) mice.

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                heres from that mice study, i know this is a surprice for you, cause you dont actually read the studies, just the conclusion

                >https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/dietinduced-obesity-in-ad-libitumfed-mice-food-texture-overrides-the-effect-of-macronutrient-composition/725D71275CF7399332CEC8C9C76BE23F
                "The pellets of this C diet have an exceptionally hard texture and are therefore difficult to chew, to swallow and may need huge amounts of energy for handling in the gastrointestinal tract. They may also cause a loss of energy by the delivery of larger amounts of undigested starch to the microbiota and may after all produce an artificially ‘lean phenotype’.

                You cant even read your own studies

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                The authors attempt to explain the result is meaningless. They apparently didn't know about the different GLP-1 and GIP responses to powdered vs unpowdered food.

                They stumbled on a result they weren't expecting and came up with a poor explanation. The carbohydrate/insulin model explains the results perfectly.

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                >The carbohydrate/insulin model explains the results perfectly
                it doesnt. nor does it do so in humans
                if it axplains it so well, why cant you post human studies? im still waiting for all the studies youve claimed, but not shown any evidence for

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                You can't lock humans in cages and feed them the same food and dissect them when you're done. Studies in humans are less direct.

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                we have metabolic ward studies. are you serious?? you dont need to cut them open to see if theyve lost fat

                Nobody in history has ever succeeded with CICO. Everyone that claims otherwise is suffering from premature celebration. 2 years after starting a CICO diet you'll be back at starting weight.

                >Nobody in history has ever succeeded with CICO
                youre actually mentally ill. again youre keep making claims, but post no evidence

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                Oh awesome, metabolic ward studies? Wow, sweet. How long did they spend in a metabolic ward with their diets perfectly controlled?

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                i litterally posted it here

                its a mice study, its a completely unrealistic diet. with no relevance in the real world.
                people who think mice studies are good evidence are litterally the bottom of the barrel type of people
                see[...]
                thats and actual metabolic ward study on humans. it may be hard for you to fathom since you think mice studies are the epidome of evidence

                and why are you still not posting any studies in humans? and you keep ignoring this question
                you keep making a whole bunch of claims without posting any studies in humans, which should be easy if the carb-insulin model is so much better

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                I was being sarcastic, buddy.

                >six obese subjects during three 10-day periods
                You're not embarassed with yourself? This is exactly the type of garbage I was laughing at.

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                >i dont like the results of the study that proves CICO right, cause its only 10 days.you litterally psoted a shitty mice study. and want me to be embarrased?

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                >proves CICO right
                See this is what I mean. You are like a child that doesn't understand the difference between knowns and unknowns.

                The mouse study is the black swan for CICO. It's unsalvageable. CICO is proven wrong.

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                One black swan trumps all studies which conclude all swans are white.

                Any study claiming to validate CICO can be thrown in the trash. We know for certain that genetically identical twins eating identical calories can have different levels of obsity.

                This proves:
                CICO/energy balance? WRONG!
                Protein to energy ratio? WRONG!
                Micronutrient hunger? WRONG!
                Carbohydrate insulin model? CORRECT!

                No other theory of obesity explains the results of the mouse study other than hormonal theory.

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Any study claiming to validate CICO can be thrown in the trash. We know for certain that genetically identical twins eating identical calories can have different levels of obsity.
                im still waiting for you to post this study

                Also the carb-insulin model is an absolute joke at predicting weight. how can you hate on CICO and then believe in a model which have more issues, less accuracy and consistancy? see

                And important part of a model is prediction
                The carb-insulin model is an absolute joke at predicting weight gain.
                >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26638192/
                "Substantial weight loss was achieved overall, but a significant diet × IR(insulin resistant) status interaction was not observed"
                >https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673150/
                "In this 12-month weight loss diet study, there was no significant difference in weight change between a healthy low-fat diet vs a healthy low-carbohydrate diet, and neither genotype pattern nor baseline insulin secretion was associated with the dietary effects on weight loss."

                CICO on the otherhand keeps predicting needs and weight gain/loss
                >https://www.jacc.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.08.050
                "Under isocaloric conditions, VLCHF and HCLF diets result in similar weight loss"
                >https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/1/23/4596906
                "Under planned isoenergetic conditions, as expected, both dietary patterns resulted in similar weight loss and changes in body composition."
                >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0939475310000323
                predicts weight maintance and loss
                >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11029975/
                similar weightloss even with wildly different macros, but its isocaloric

                the best study ive found for carb-insulin model weight prediction is that it prodicted 10% of the weight gain.
                ive never seen anything better.
                but please show me a study where it accuratly predicts weight gain, ill wait.

      • 3 days ago
        Anonymous

        please post a study where that happened. or are you gonna make up mroe fantasy scenarios?

        • 3 days ago
          Anonymous

          They induced obesity in mice in this study with just food texture difference (powdered vs solid).

          The mice were
          >genetically identical
          >eating the same calories
          >eating the same macros
          yet one group ended up obese while the other group was lean. And since they are mice the diet was perfectly controlled, it's not based on self-reporting. A very clear debunking of CICO.

          https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22863169/

          • 3 days ago
            Anonymous

            its a mice study, its a completely unrealistic diet. with no relevance in the real world.
            people who think mice studies are good evidence are litterally the bottom of the barrel type of people
            see

            [...]

            thats and actual metabolic ward study on humans. it may be hard for you to fathom since you think mice studies are the epidome of evidence

            • 3 days ago
              Anonymous

              If two genetically identical life forms can eat identical amounts of calories with identical nutrient compositions and have different levels of obesity it makes CICO theory impossible.

              This clearly demonstrates that only hormonal theory is possible. The mice have different body composition because of hormone reaction to the food.

  33. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    Ok, but who asked?

  34. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    Explain how this disproves the law of conversation of energy bro

  35. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28526920/
    increased postprandial insulin secretion, but decreased fat mass. how does the insulin carb model explain this?

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      Semaglutide has a ton of side effects like nausea. And it lowers the amount of glucose produced by the liver (i.e. less carbs in the carb/insulin model).

      You can actually just inject people with insulin directly and observe the results. It causes fat storage.

      • 3 days ago
        Anonymous

        So smart bros in this thread

        Is fasting bad? How does it effect insulin? Lost weight and have loose skin but dont want to look like

        • 3 days ago
          Anonymous

          Fasting is good for health and longevity but long term you need to eat healthy food. If you feel like you have to fast to compensate for bad diet you're doing it wrong.

      • 3 days ago
        Anonymous

        Ketards can't meme

  36. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11029975/
    "fat storage during overfeeding of isoenergetic amounts of diets rich in carbohydrate or in fat was not significantly different, and carbohydrates seemed to be converted to fat by both hepatic and extrahepatic lipogenesis."

    how does the insulin carb model explain this one?

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      >C-group received 78 % of energy as carbohydrates, 11 % of energy as protein and 11 % of energy as fat
      >F-group received 58 % of energy as fat, 11 % of energy as protein and 31 % of energy as carbohydrate
      31% carb. Lol. And they were forced to eat a certain amount of calories which obfuscates the increased hunger caused by eating carbs (raised insulin)

      • 3 days ago
        Anonymous

        when are you gonna start posting studies in humans that proves insulin is the cause of weight gain? and not weight gain being the cause of the insulin issues?

        • 3 days ago
          Anonymous

          I don't think you understand how proof and knowledge work. I posted proof that CICO is false. I believe that the hormonal theory is true because none of the available evidence excludes it. It's probably true because it withstands all tests thrown at it. You can't really prove a positive assertion you just have to test and see if it can be proven false.

          I have never seen anything from your type which can refute the carbohydrate insulin model. You just throw out misleading garbage like the semaglutide claim even though we can more directly study insulin by injecting literal insulin. You're dishonest.

          • 3 days ago
            Anonymous

            the mice study isnt black swan for anything. you say it is cause youre actually dishonest yourself.
            talking about how proof works yet uses a mice study, with an absolute ridiculous scenario, then you dont post any human studies to shows something similar. cause you actually dont have any. you lean on one study and act like its the end all be all. while ignore most of the studies that have been posted.

            you discredit some of the studies cause theyre unrealistic, but somehow your study is realistic. yet no humans eat like that. Nor do they live like lab mice. And you ignore the long term studies ive posted. thats not a metabolic ward study. but i guess theyre not good enough too
            you discredit metabolic ward studies cause theyre unrealistic, but fail to realise that the study you used is pretty much the equalent. no wild mice lives in lab, in the same conditions. Nor eat that type of diet.

            the absolute amount of cognitive dissonance is incredible.
            and im still waiting on human studies.

            • 3 days ago
              Anonymous

              Negative proof exists. Positive proof doesn't.

              Your worldview is infantile and based on faith.

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                mentall illness is a serious issue. please get help

        • 3 days ago
          Anonymous

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_shock_therapy

          >The hypoglycemia (pathologically low glucose levels) that resulted from ICT made patients extremely restless, sweaty, and liable to further convulsions and "after-shocks". In addition, patients invariably emerged from the long course of treatment "grossly obese".

          • 3 days ago
            Anonymous

            what does this therapy have to do with what i wrote?
            i guess articles are good now:
            >https://www.drmcdougall.com/newsletters/walter-kempner-md-founder-of-the-rice-diet/
            "The treatment was a simple therapy of white rice, fruit, juice, and sugar, and was reserved for only the most seriously ill patients. Although low-tech, the benefits of the Rice Diet far exceed those of any drug or surgery ever prescribed for chronic conditions, including coronary artery disease, heart and kidney failure, hypertension, diabetes, arthritis, and obesity."
            why use proper research when you can use shitty articles?

            • 3 days ago
              Anonymous

              >what does this therapy have to do with what i wrote?
              It proves that an increase of insulin in humans results in more mass gain, even without an increase in calories.

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                no it proves that injecting insulin can cause obesity. it doesnt prove that insulin increase from diet cause obesity.

                >"proper research"
                >posts Kempner
                lmfao its like clockwork with you people. If this rice diet is so wonderful why has there never been an RCT showing its beneficial? And no a few cherry picked case reports is not equivalent. Arguably the only benefit on the rice diet was due to the weight loss from massive caloric restriction but its impossible to say for sure as there's no proper research

                thats the litteral joke. it flew right over your head. then you act smart. you must be autistic, cause theres no way you missed that sarcarm with a normal mind

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                >more insulin causes more obesity
                >not when the insulin comes from food, though, then only calories matter

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Pumping the body with insane amount of insulin is definetly an accurate description of what happens when you eat.
                Im amazed of your stupidity. do you really think theres no other interactions that happens in the body when you eat, vs having insulin injected?

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Pumping the body with insane amount of insulin is definetly an accurate description of what happens when you eat.
                If you're eating processed food? Yes.

            • 3 days ago
              Anonymous

              >"proper research"
              >posts Kempner
              lmfao its like clockwork with you people. If this rice diet is so wonderful why has there never been an RCT showing its beneficial? And no a few cherry picked case reports is not equivalent. Arguably the only benefit on the rice diet was due to the weight loss from massive caloric restriction but its impossible to say for sure as there's no proper research

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                > the weight loss from massive caloric restriction
                these jokes writes themselves.

          • 3 days ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks for sharing. Another interesting proof that insulin fattens people to add to the mountain.

  37. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    >National data on energy intake and energy availability show increases between 1961 and 2000, during modern industrialization of food; but a plateau or declines thereafter—even as obesity continued rising—and while physical activity modestly increased. Thus, Americans appear to be eating relatively less since 2000, for ever-increasing body sizes, as time has progressed.
    https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/115/6/1445/6572830

  38. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    This quote is from the article you posted

    "SO, IS THE carbohydrate-insulin model more correct than energy balance thinking? Unfortunately, the definitive research needed to resolve this controversy has not been done, in part because alternative paradigms for obesity have not been taken seriously."

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      He's very diplomatic.

  39. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    >Wikipedia: Low-Carbohydrate diet

    OP BTFO. If keto really worked then why is it not in the sticky? OP IRREPARABLY BTFO

  40. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    That's weird, it worked perfectly for me.

  41. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    this thread is what happens when you have far brain

  42. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    >Thermodynamics has been disproven
    >Competing paradigms of obesity pathogenesis
    lol
    lmao

  43. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    >ketoschizo is on the loose again

    • 2 days ago
      Anonymous

      can you see your dick anymore, you know, eating carbs and all? i imagine your gut is expanding at the same rate that your dick is shrinking/receding into your fupa

  44. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    Ketolards are lying retards

  45. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    This is keto, wtf us ketochads were right?

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      Always have been.

Your email address will not be published.