The average person (or at least the average American) lacks the intelligence to understand why the calorie model is bunk.
Some quick facts:
>calories have no mass and are not physically "present" in anything
>they are a measure of how much something can heat water around it after being burned to a crisp
>even coal "has" calories
>your body does not extract, absorb, or use calories. It uses macronutrients that have a calorie "value" slapped over them
>calories are not an accurate unit to represent the usable energy found in food
But the average person literally doesn't understand causality, the scientific process, what energy even is as a concept, or even basic physics.
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
sex
ok fatty
moar
sex with princess zelda
>post body fatty!
Ok.
>shirt on for front pic
Bro has a 4 pack on his lower back, clearly lean
You tried really hard to suck your stomach in, but the fatceps gave it away.
>fatceps
HAHAHAH okay bro. We get it you have no arm mass.
Congrats on your transition! You’ll look like a man one day, maybe after you understand calories
>This is the guy deboonking CICO
Lmao. Please be real
Law of Thermodynamics DEBUNKED by OP
Heat doesn't exist. It's all conservation of momentum.
>if you eat a grain of uranium you will gain 1000lbs since that grain contains millions of calories
>anon thinks this would break thermodynamics
Post body you wont
But the calories from the uranium come from radiation emitting you uneducated Black person
He already did CICOtard
Rolf see a moron says cico doesnt work and post body like this.
I can tell you cico works
The human body is not a closed system. Thermodynamics is a typical midwit argument.
>fatty detected
>a particular test, useful for human digestion, also provides numbers when applied to COAL
and you can get the BMI of a literal rock
and you can probably get a smart scale to give you bogus numbers about a monkey
and "sex leads to conception" can be deboonked by you repeatedly fricking a bunch of dogs with them never getting pregnant.
>calories have funny little caveats
the numbers are consistent enough to be useful
>a particular test useful for human digestion
It absolutely is not. Your body is not a bomb calorimeter
people use it and benefit. It's useful. That there isn't a 1:1 physical agreement in the test and reality doesn't change that. If you count 50 sheep, don't notice one getting eaten by a wolf, does it make math wrong when someone else comes along and counts 49?
Again, you don't understand the basics. Your metabolism has absolutely nothing to do with calories.
You lose weight when you eat less MASS, of course! That doesn't mean calories are legit. Just like it doesn't prove that dinglewoppers are (dinglewoppers are a unit of energy I made up to represent the usable energy in food).
You can eat an excess of "calories" and lose fat and weight.
how do you plan to measure mass out? Sleep with a facemask and only use monitored toilets?
The following is a basic rundown on human metabolism of food:
>your body obtains mass usable for metabolic process in the forms of carbohydrates, fats and proteins
>your body breaks one of them down into glucose
>once the glucose is used for chemical reaction the remaining mass is excreted as carbon and water (through exhales, pissing, shitting and sweating)
Here's why it's such a dynamic relationship between your body and the macronutrients that calories are a poor estimation of the overall work being done
>some macronutrients can be prevented from being absorbed if there is fiber present in the digestive tract
>the different macros have different efficiencies in their conversion into glucose, carbohydrates require little work to be converted, fat requires more, and protein requires even more
>the different macros have a different rate of breakdown and storage (your body almost never uses protein as a source of glucose, it's not its main source unless you're in late stage starvation, you can literally piss out excess protein)
>the different macros have different effects on insulin levels, which is a hormone that drives the storage process of macronutrients (carbs spike insulin, leading to more weight gain for the otherwise similar intake of food)
>a protein "caloric surplus" is shown to not always increase total weight
Okay. What’s your solution?
The solution is to only eat whole foods (95%+), the less processed the better, and no slop (refined sugar/wheat/vegetable oil products devoid of micronutrients)
If someone is trying to lose fat they should eat mostly fat and protein, and healthy carb sources as the lowest macronutrient proportionally in order to maintain low insulin levels and increase satiety
If someone wants to gain muscle they should do the same as above but with more carbs
No tracking required for most people as whole foods and high protein foods are very satiating. Hyper palatable processed foods are the main cause of obesity.
And of course everyone should work out.
You’re too autistic to be reasoned with. Truly a lost cause.
as practical advice, only "No tracking required" is bad in that. This whole thread is built against the caricatured advice of telling someone to count calories and pay no more attention to diet. There's lots of advice like that, which could technically work but is unbearable so people stop trying to make it work. In the leangains book, the author talks about how his diet drove him to steal and eat an entire birthday cake in college. He wasn't fat, he was some kind of fashion model, so the diet was "working" - but it left him in a state where he'd do stuff like that.
I’m assuming you’ve seen Fat Chance 2.0 by Robert Lustig?
>fat breaks down into glucose
okay moron
besides that you're making good points but your thinking is still faulty
If I consume a pound of water how come I don’t gain weight but if I consume a pound of oil then I do gain weight?
Replace half your dietary mass with broccoli and tell me how that treats you.
It just so happens that not all mass is equal when it comes time to measure your energy intake. There's good news, though - scientists have determined a decent, not perfect, but pretty decent system for estimating how much energy eating certain types of mass will contribute to your body. It's easily good enough for anyone to use in their attempt to lose undesirable weight. In fact, the system is so good that there's literally no reason for this thread to exist.
>Replace half your dietary mass with broccoli and tell me how that treats you.
I gain weight. BTDT.
It made you use steroids?
It made me lose fat over a 6 year timespan without steroids. That's how effective macro counting is.
Looking at you in the original picture, I can obviously tell that you being overweight was lifestyle-related - alcohol, bad food, bad sleep, stress, sedentarism, etc. I'm glad you had that transformation, but you must realize that the same interventions that worked for you would not work for people that strike you as fat and ugly on a guttural level.
How the frick is that related to anything itt? I'm posting proof of CICO working, which the OP claims it doesn't.
It's not an excess if you're losing weight, you absolutely fricking moron. This is stupid and you should feel stupid.
Post body OP. CICO works, its the foundation of any good diet.
>CICO works
It never worked. Didn't even work when it was still the Atwater System in the late 1800s.
>even coal "has" calories
No shit, calories is a measure of the amount of energy released when you burn something.
>not calling them "coalories"
How do you explain athletes being able to accurately predict their target weight for competitions based on the CICO model?
The only way to successfully body recomp using CICO is to under eat.
You can lose fat while consuming an excess of "calories" by doing low carb.
low carb
Black person what.
So if my TDEE is 3k calories and I eat 3k calories of cheese per day, I'm going to burn bodyfat?
Yes
Been reading about it more. It makes perfect sense. Carbs absorbed easily, get stored as fat unless you burn them all with exercise. Fat and protein takes longer and you poop out the excess. So you don't actually get the caloric value on the packet. Fiber further complicates things.
It's why hibernating critters switch to high carb diets before they hibernate.
So when I'm cutting, low carb, keep the calories more or less the same, maybe slight deficit. Do cardio so the carbs get used and the bodyfat gets used for glucose too because it's easier than the body converting lean meat (protein) to glucose.
Good post OP.
>It's why hibernating critters switch to high carb diets before they hibernate.
Black person bears eat 20,000 calories a day before hibernation, they eat whatever they can find, a good amount of this is fat and sugar. your talking out of your ass.
then what about polar bears?
going extinct sadly, its because they thought they could ignore thermodynamics
you seriously suggesting Black person bears have a better understanding of thermodynamics than polar bears?
In the absence of carbs, your body will spend energy to convert the fats you eat and your body fat to carbs to then be burned. At the end of the day. respiration is the conversion of sugar and oxygen to water, carbon dioxide, and energy. If you don't provide the sugar directly, your body has various channels to synthesize it from other sources, as well as various ways to store excess of many macro nutrients for later use. What you would find in a hyper min/maxed diet of purely cheese, is that even though you're taking in 3k calories worth of cheese, your body wasn't able to use all 3k and some would be lost to waste, or some of the energy from them would be used to just convert the remainder to sugar. With your CO still being 3k, and your actual CI being less than 3k, you'd lose weight.
>How do you explain athletes being able to accurately predict their target weight for competitions based on the CICO model?
You have never cut weight huh? They cannot accurately predict it at all, even with lab conditions. It even fails pretty often, even at elite levels ("didn't make the weight"). And finally, cutting weight means losing WATER WEIGHT, not fat.
It's an approximation that is useful because we can't study and index the metabolic process for digesting every single food.
Okay then explain how I've lost 25 lbs since the beginning of the year by counting calories and excersing more.
You can't brainlet.
You were a fat frick literally just 2 months ago (and likely still are) why should anyone listen to you
>Okay then explain how I've lost 25 lbs since the beginning of the year by counting calories and excersing more.
You lost water weight and muscle mass. Did you actually check your bf% before and after? No? Then STFU.
btw if you think you're getting a rise out of people, the CICO skepticism is pretty relaxing when compared to genuinely corrupted academic fields where every naive argument is
>OF COURSE phlogiston exists
>look, I burned some stuff and now there's less mass
and
>if horoscopes aren't real then explain why my BF raped me
>the average person literally doesn't understand causality, the scientific process, what energy even is as a concept, or even basic physics.
right, that's why we use calories as a unit, since drowning your mind in the minutiae of variance between different foods has rapidly diminishing returns.
calories - and CICO more generally - are just a useful approximation for getting a ballpark estimate on how good or bad a given diet is. it's imprecise, but shaking and sputtering like a schizoid moron over that imprecision is a waste of time.
t. actual Scientist
Yeah the biggest problem with """CICO""" is that it doesn't come with any actual lifestyle advice on how to achieve the desired daily/weekly balance. People assume it does and wind up arguing past each other moronicly.
>calories - and CICO more generally - are just a useful approximation for getting a ballpark estimate on how good or bad a given diet is. it's imprecise, but shaking and sputtering like a schizoid moron over that imprecision is a waste of time.
>t. unable to solve the obesity crisis or even finding a reason for it
Gee whizz.
>fat cope
Why don’t you lose the weight then?
Thats all very interesting but before I read anything you say or take you seriously as a person, what is your vaxx status?
>lust-provoking image
>vax status
>irrelevant question
if you keep adding requirements I'm going to have to start getting paid for all this data entry
I am unvaxxed.
The same people who want you to trust the vaxx want you to believe that twinkies and red meat can be equated for human metabolism by applying their CICO model.
You can easily lose weight eating nothing but twinkies.
not easily. It's certainly a greater psychological challenge to lose weight on slop than on good food. Slop really makes you want to eat more slop. And malnourishment makes you want to eat anything.
If you massively under eat, yeah. Calories still have nothing to do with it. Just like volts have nothing to do with it.
AGAIN. you can lose weight and fat while eating a "caloric surplus"
>be fat
>go on your diet, eat whatever you want as long as it’s Whole Foods. No goyslop, water only
>get fatter
I think I found a problem
Did you really just misinterpret "whole foods" as the supermarket by the same name?
KEK. Define whole vs processed foods for me lad
No, I’m phoneposting and the apple israelites autocorrect it to that.
Whole Foods:
>raw cuts of meat
>raw fruits and vegetables
>nuts/seeds
>milk/eggs
>olive oil/tallow/lard/butter
Unprocessed foods consisting of themselves as the sole ingredient in the food
Oil is not whole food.
>smash olive
>have oil
Neither is tallow or lard because it needs to be rendered. Arguably tallow and lard is more highly processed than cold pressed olive oil.
So you agree that your own definition of whole foods is wrong? Lol
Did you have an actual point or did you just want to argue? A whole food consists of that food in and of itself, no additives or processing agents
Wrong again.
Okay what’s the definition. You asked for my definition, that’s how I’d define Whole Foods.
Whole foods are foods in their natural state.
Minimally processed foods are foods which are minorly altered in form but have no additives (pure peanut butter, tofu)
Moderately processed foods are foods which are majorly changed in form or are extracts of foods, and have a couple additives ("regular" peanut butter with added oil and sugar, whole grain bread, processed meats)
Highly processed foods are "foods" that are amalgamations of refined or bioengineered food ingredients (junk food like chips, pastries, wonderbread)
If 95% of your diet is whole foods, good luck getting fat. Not happening 99% of the time.
You could eat oranges and nuts and easily get fat you fricking moron
>easily
look, be real. It would be a challenge. Physically. Mentally.
I’m not even sure what your premise is at this point. You can get fat off of Whole Foods; calories are a perfectly acceptable way of dialing in your diet. You’ve made up a million straw men to knock down in your pursuit for whatever it is you’re trying to prove
CICOschizo's message is simple:
>if you eat real food, you don't have to care about calories
I doubt that, but people keep advancing their own very weak examples to try and defy it. You're the one who constructed the straw man.
For my part, I think I could get pretty fat on a diet of milk and cheese. Is ancient herder food a "processed food" as well?
>calories aren't real because burning calories is too dissimilar from how humans digest food
this is a very weak argument and CICOschizo also pivots away from it quickly.
>counting calories is bad because it's not a complete diet program in itself. People can count calories but then, because they eat slop, easily fail to constrain themselves
I think this is obviously true, and that other posters only attack it because they're triggered by how wrong the "calories aren't real" argument is
>Is ancient herder food a "processed food" as well?
Of course it is.
>nonamericans don’t understand that units of measurement are all arbitrary
Lmao it literally doesn’t matter how a unit of measurement relates to anything as long as it is constant. Like those online IQ tests, do they accurately test IQ? Who knows, but if everyone in the thread is doing the same test and the test doesn’t just give random unrepeatable results then you are getting an accurate measurement of who has a higher IQ in the thread and people seething about online IQ tests are still stupid.
Calories as a constant unit of measurement does allow us to track our diet, there doesn’t even need to be any real science behind it, these things can be determined a priori.
Why does not owning a gun destroy people mind and soul?
>it works if the unit is constant
And calories are not constant. Rip
This is what CICO did to me
I didn't read your post, nor do I plan to. All I'd like to say is that this girl is built for BBC and needs a blacking, on the double!
Schizophrenic thread. It’s always funny when morons like you think you know a lot about biochemistry when you know absolutely nothing. The fact you have such a fundamental misunderstanding of what calories are is hilarious.
>misunderstanding of what calories are
>doesn't try to correct my accurate description of a calorie
>just trust me bro!
Bullying CICOtards is so easy, they do it themselves
Buddy, you’re aren’t worth my time to argue with since you think the human body doesn’t extract energy (aka calories) from food (whose inherent energy levels have been quantified by humans in units we call calories).
Your body literally does not extract calories from food. It extracts macronutrients. Calories are a measurement of heat. Your body does not run on heat energy. It runs on mass usable in its chemical interactions (macronutrients)
You’re actually a moron. Your body doesn’t run on “mass” and calories aren’t a measure of heat you moron. Learn what bond energy is and how the body produces ATP utilizing molecules with high bond energy and maybe you’ll sound a little less moronic when you speak, but I doubt you have the IQ to comprehend concepts that complex.
Nuts are one of the most calorically dense foods out there, it’s not that hard to get fat off of them.
>calories aren't a measure of heat
Pic related
>moron posts proof that he doesn’t understand what a calorie is, or how biochemistry, chemistry, or physics works
Lol. Thx for proving beyond a doubt you have no idea what that frick you are talking about. It literally even says right there in your screenshot that a Calorie “is the amount of energy”. Heat is just the transfer of energy and bomb calorimeters is how we can quantify the transfer of energy (aka heat) from a substance to water and then determine how much energy the substance in question has, which we call calories. And since the human body runs off of bioavailable forms of energy, like the energy from food, then you can use the calculated calories of those foods to either give your body more or less than it needs. People like you need to be euthanized.
>"calories aren't a measurement of heat!!"
>"yes they are, see?"
>"...REEEEEEEEEE"
kek. Thx buddy
>since the human body runs off of bioavailable forms of energy, like the energy from food, then you
can use the calculated calories of those foods to either give your body more or less than it needs
This isn't entirely correct for a large number of people (evidenced by, for example, levothyroxine being the second or third most prescribed medication in the US for a significant number of years). The amount of calories your body "needs" is not constant, and is modulated largely by your metabolism - i.e. "exercise" only accounts for at most ~20% of your total energy use if you're very active. This is all to say that, for someone with dysfunction in the hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid axis, caused by hypothyroidism or otherwise, your body can downregulate its energy use to overcome any caloric deficit.
All of that aside, there's a second assumption here about activities on a cellular level: that your body, assuming it doesn't modulate your metabolism downward, will default to lipid catabolism over protein catabolism - i.e. to burning fat for energy instead of burning muscle. This as well is modulated by both the h-p-t axis that I mentioned above and the broader endocrine system, including the adrenal glands, the pancreas, and the testes.
In reality, you can only say something like CICO is law for someone with a properly functioning endocrine system, which is an increasingly small percentage of the population.
It's not just that, but metabolic fluctuations occur in healthy people depending on their diet. If you eat a consistent influx of carbs, your blood sugar spikes often, as does your insulin, increasing storage of macronutrients, increasing fat and weight. If your blood sugar drops, your metabolism slows down, and if it stays down, you eventually go into ketosis, which leads to lower insulin levels all day, which means less storage of macronutrients. Your body burns carbs first, then fat. If your blood sugar is always elevated, you burn little fat. You don't burn protein for energy unless you eat a massive surplus (which partly will be pissed out) or are in late stage starvation. Plus protein is very inefficiently converted into glucose, it's almost NEVER stored as fat.
The macronutrients and their metabolic effects are not at all equal, therefore saying "a calorie is a calorie" in regards to them is just flat out incorrect.
>If your blood sugar is always elevated, you burn little fat
Which is why disorders of the liver and pancreas are part and parcel with obesity, and contribute to lipodystrophy even in those who are not obviously "obese." The issue with extending this argument to "augment your macro ratios instead of your calories" is that, if you have dysfunction which led you to this point, you'll likely severely damage your organs by forcing the issue.
The original post wasn't an argument to switch calorie focus to macros exactly, it was a refutation of the calorie model point blank. The body's metabolism has nothing to do with calories. It's entirely to do with macronutrients and it's mass in mass out.
Might as well say there are a certain number of dinglewoppers in food, an energy unit I made up that has absolutely no bearing on the metabolic processes of the body.
what the frick are you talking about
are you trying to say calories don't matter
Your body does not extract, absorb, or use calories. Calories are literally a measurement of heat. See pic related. There are no calories "in" food. They're not "things". Your body uses macronutrients.
OP discovers measures of potential energy
>Your electronics do not extract, absorb, or use volts. Volts are literally a measurement of potential energy needed to move a charge from one place to another. See pic related. There are no volts "in" batteries. They're not "things". Your electronics use electrons.
Watt-hours my man. Volts don't measure energy.
Yes I am aware of this, I am actually attending college for electrical engineering. I assumed OP had not yet had to buy a lightbulb, so was unfamiliar with watt hours. I expect he had, however, eaten a battery before, based on the fact that he is mentally moronic. Those are labeled in volts, which is a unit that contains Joules, just in relation to coloumbs. So no, not directly comparable in a physical sense, but analogous in a “here’s a representation of someone making a moronic point about theoretical energy units” sense.
Can you imagine OP posting the same shitty reasoning somewhere like IST?
>NASCAR says that their cars can't go to unsafe speeds like 260mph because they have a max of 700 brake horsepower and their weight and drag wouldn't allow them to reach this speed.
>But NASCAR is totally ignorant of wheel horsepower. They don't factor in the energy lost due to the drivetrain.
>Ergo, NASCAR can't be certain that their cars won't go 260 mph just from brake horsepower, weight, and drag alone.
>No! NASCAR isn't allowed to measure their cars in real life on straightaway tracks relative to BHP to estimate their speed, they've got to calculate wheel horsepower! because...they just do!
Calories in the body are not comparable to volts in a circuit.
Potential energy is potential energy as far as the universe is concerned it doesn’t care that you don’t believe in it.
Ah yes. Therefore watts can be used to describe the force of a truck hitting you.
>CICO wins again durr!!
Watt-hours again. Yes it could. You can use Joules or calories also.
>yes, you absorb volts from food
Weird hill to die on. CICO is a dogma.
post hand
Hand? Why
NTA but do it
Macros are literally energetic fluctuations in a quantum field.
>The original post wasn't an argument to switch calorie focus to macros exactly
I wasn't implying it was - rather, I was cautioning against extending the point that you made about the role different macros play in nutrition to conclusions about "weight loss" as it's usually understood, i.e. decreasing body fat percentage while maintaining or increasing muscle mass, finding itself an alternative to CICO in macro ratios that's viable for everyone.
To sum up what's a viable approach to weight loss, for the health of individuals in descending order (good -> poor):
CICO
Macro ratios
Vitamins/Lifestyle changes
Synthetic hormones
Of course, as you get further down that list, you'll likely incorporate some elements of the preceding grades.
Scratch "Synthetic hormones" and replace it with "Exogenous hormones," though they're largely synthetic.
The top of the list should be macro ratio sourced from +95% whole foods.
>It's entirely to do with macronutrients and it's mass in mass out.
"Macronutrients" is just as much of a gross oversimplification of how the body works as "calories".
There are 20-something different amino acids which constitute proteins. There are hundreds of different kinds of sugars, sugar alcohols, there are thousands of different fatty acids. Each of them have different effects on your body. To lump thousands of disparate chemicals together under the label "fats" is arguably even more braindead than simply abstracting ALL energy-bearing molecules to "calories".
Aint no way a fricking baconator can boil 10kg of water
a baconator can get hot enough to melt steel beams
Off topic but is this girl natty?
That's like physically impossible right?
I dunno. She's probably very short and edited the photo somewhat.
She might be on something but she doesn't look androgyzed and she doesnt have acne.
I lost 50 pounds on CICO. Lost the last 25 on KETO.
>the last 25
Bf% now?
>Calories have no mass and are not physically “present” in anything
No shit lol. It’s a unit of potential energy. The explosive yield of a bomb in joules is not physically present either.
Modern calories are not completely determined by a bomb calorimeter. There are different categories of macronutrients that are measured by gram and then calculated based on an estimated g/cal ratio. The g/cal ratio is based off an initial bomb calorimeter average, but is modified over time based on medical information in calorie usage. For example, fiber combusts and heats water in a calorimeter, but is not added to calorie totals because we know that the stomach can’t digest it.
>Your body does not extract, absorb, or use calories.
Extracting energy from matter is the fundamental basis of sustaining life.
When you eat an 30g of chicken, you don’t gain weight by directly adding the matter of the chicken to your body. It is broken down into base elements and largely transformed into energy storage mediums. If you expend less energy than you have consumed energy storing substances, your body will convert the energy storage mediums to progressively longer term storage substances. At the end of the process, it is converted into fat, keeping some of the matter consumed within the system. If you expend more calories, the energy storage mediums are converted to metabolic waste products in the process of releasing energy, which are then expelled from your body, releasing the matter added from the system.
Calories are a very rough tool, they cover a large range of metabolic processes, but they are undeniably useful. Using exclusively macronutrient measurements would require the research of each individual proportioned diet, and wether or not it causes weight gain or loss, at the end of which you would arrive at a constant adjusted unit similar to the calorie.
>this model that has 95% utility for the stated aim of losing or maintaining weight?
>it's bad because it stops people from spending years learning abstract physics for marginal and useless gain
Wow OP, you cracked the code
I think the more sound refutation of CICO being universally true/useful is just that metabolism can be modulated quite easily.
>grammatical mistake in patronizing Reddit tone comic
OTOH, nobody here SHOULD be so basic as to need to gain or lose MASS.
We should be talking about losing fat and gaining muscle, keeping satiety up, perfect and imperfect adherence, things like that.
The QUALITY of what you eat matters, when you're trying to lose fat or gain muscle, not just change your total mass.
>if you drink a gallon of petrol you will gain weight
>it's the laws of physics, idiot
If you can provide me ONE (1) example of a person who ate at a caloric surplus yet still lost weight you will have some credence to your argument. Until then, you have none.
Diet in question must:
>be at a larger caloric surplus than basal metabolic + exercise
>be a statistically significant increase in calories that cannot be attributed to rounding or estimating errors
If you can find a person eating at 500cal surplus but still lost weight due to whatever mumbo jumbo you're spouting, maybe people will believe you. Until then, CICO.
?si=mZNInbYNqAk36yty
I've never looked better since I started doing CICO. It works. OP is a massive homosexual.
why is /fit such a dogshit board now?
zoomers.
>drink half a gallon of Coke ZERO because I'm on a diet. (ZERO Calories)
>weigh like 4 lbs more than I did just a few hours ago.
Doesn't make any sense. CICO is a joke
Right. So due to metabolic inefficiency, CICO means we will lose even more weight than expected. Cool!
Carb cycling works, change my mind
It 100% does. See
>CICO doesn't work!!
weird it's worked pretty well for me. Down 18 lbs over 5 months.
Under eating obviously works. You don't have to under eat to lose fat though. Your body does not absorb or use calories. It absorbs and uses carbs, fats, and protein. It almost never uses protein for energy, and it only burns meaningful amounts of fat once your blood sugar is low.
>Under eating obviously works
you mean counting calories
>Your body does not absorb or use calories. It absorbs and uses carbs, fats, and protein
But I'm eating carbs, fats, and proteins, which contain calories. And by that logic I shouldn't be losing weight since I haven't restricted anything besides raw calorie values.
>you mean counting calories
No. I mean grossly undereating macronutrients, which is not a healthy way to lose weight. Macro ratios, keeping carbs low and animal fat/protein high, will lose you your excess fat while not under nourishing you.
macros contain calories. You seem to ignore that part.
>keeping carbs low and animal fat/protein high, will lose you your excess fat while not under nourishing you
I don't restrict anything, I get my protein in, with a mix of carbs and fat. I lose weight. magic! I'm even looking almost shredded for the first time in my life.
>macros contain calories.
No they do not. Calories are not "things" and thus aren't contained.
See:
Macros have a caloric value. Calories are a measurement. Does you wiener contain inches moron?
Some macros are absorbed easily like simple sugar, some are not and you will use calories to get calories. Alcohol (the fourth macro) has 7cal, but you use like 1.5 to absorb it.
CICO is good enough to estimate if you're eating more than you need.
Calories are not an appropriate unit to describe the bioavailable energy found in food.
the unit you use to measure energy doesn't matter, you could use Joules and nothing would change
It is tho. Digestion aside you get 4 per carb or protein, 7 per alcohol and 9 per fat. Are you thinking of micronutrients?
Calories are a good way to measure how many carbs, fats, and proteins are in something, though, so they're a useful shorthand for comparing two different types of food with different macro nutrients. Without them you're stuck in a situation where you're trying to figure out if you'd lost more weight eating 7oz of pasta or 16oz of boneless, skinless chicken breast (it's the chicken, incidentally, at about 35 cal/oz, vs pasta at 100 cal/oz).
>calories are a good way to measure how many carbs fats and proteins are in something
No? No it's not?
It won't tell you how many of each are in the food, nutrition labels can be +/-20% off legally, that protein will almost never be used for energy, etc.
calories dont exist
all that matters is not eating carbs or excessive protein, which keeps insulin low (the fat storage hormone)
you can eat unlimited calories of saturated animal fat in actual proper ketosis while losing bodyfat
I eat lots of carbs and lose weight. I eat rice like every day, and have had pasta frequently. Been eating english muffins with jam too. Down 22 lbs.
you sound like a Black person that can't think abstractly
>I can't see calories therefore they aren't real
So if calories don't matter, what does? What do you need to eat?
Meat and fat
Has anyone ITT ever fricked a fit porn star? What was it like?
where the frick do you think you are
>The degree model is bunk
>See, degrees have no actual heat and are not "present" in anything
>They are a measure of the temperature of a thing compared to boiling and freezing points of water
>The air around you doesn't extract or exchange degrees. It has a temperature that has a degree "value" slapped over it
You are an absolute moron and a pseud
>calories have no mass and are not physically "present" in anything
So is gravity. What's your point? It's not a 'real' thing?
And?
I've seen this thread before and the op never elaborates or offers a different path or even any pragmatic advice. the conclusion is always that cico will have to do for now
a pound of feathers is lighter than a pound of bricks according to op
The more food you eat, the fatter you get. The less food you eat, the more you lose weight. Calories are a good way to do a rough estimate of how much digestible food is in the food you eat, and how much is actually unusable by your body and will just be waste product. It is not a perfect system, but it's a good enough rule of thumb that it works 99+% of the time.
cico works fine, people frick up the co part and just guess or wildly overestimate how much work they are going. and then they lie about the ci. cico needs a particular personality type to work well in the long run. most people can't follow simple instructions that well which is why they have issues graduating from school on time or at all and then they come shitpost on IST about their workouts not working.
>cico works fine, except
- It's very hard to accurately measure calories out
- Every method of increasing calories out has different costs and consequences
- Measuring calories in is very tedious
- Target deficit (or surplus) is often well within the margin of error for both of these measurements.
- Even best-case scenario, cico is ONLY about gaining or losing mass and tells you nothing about body composition, strength, cardiovascular fitness, or basically any real-world objective.
>cico needs a particular personality type to work well in the long run
In other words, someone who figures out some lifestyle that works for them that has virtually nothing to do with cico itself but then credits cico anyway because it's a tautological assertion and is technically always true no matter what.
You're confusing tautologies with functions. CICO is a functional relation between variables.
You're also very clearly engaged in a formal fallacy involving probability premises.
Your form of argument could be used to show that a fair lottery is rigged.
-Someone won a lottery by chance
-It is unlikely to win the lottery by chance ('it's difficult to track calories').
-A non-chance win is rigged.
-Ergo, whoever won the lottery won due to rigging.
But of course, it's not just your logical form that's wrong. Your premises are weak, too, and so your argument would be weak even if it were inductive.
>Even best-case scenario, cico is ONLY about gaining or losing mass and tells you nothing about body composition, strength, cardiovascular fitness, or basically any real-world objective.
But who actually thinks that CICO evaluates all aspects of performance? The purpose of CICO is the name on the tin. People use CICO to supplement other metrics.
Do you think the EPA calculates miles per gallon and people get mad because this doesn't predict how long they can run their car's AC, or how long it will take their car to warm up in the winter? MPG doesn't claim to measure those things, even if the dash reading 'EMPTY' is a powerful clue that their car won't perform well.
>CICO is a functional relation between variables.
No, CICO is just stating a rule of thermodynamics that will always be true no matter what you do. It doesn't imply anything.
None of the rest of the bullshit in your post is a valid response to anything I wrote.
>calories have no mass and are not physically "present" in anything
I often forget most of this board actively hates college education and has never taken basic thermodynamics.
Kys op
Lmao
This is so stupid it actually made me laugh. Have a (you)