You can't refute CICO. The same laws of physics that apply to me, apply to you.

You can't refute CICO. The same laws of physics that apply to me, apply to you. I will explain it as clearly as I can…

It's really simple: Weight change = calories in - calories out

This equation governs your weight gain or weight loss. It doesn't govern the TYPE of weight, or how healthy you actually are. Those require more dietary depth. The type of weight you gain or lose is governed in part by your macro distribution, because that will impact if it’s muscle or fat. Your overall health requires attention to your micro-nutrient intake.

But overall weight gain or loss is governed by nothing else than CICO. This is why you can gain weight eating “clean” (if you eat only broccoli at a caloric surplus, you will gain weight), and why you can lose weight eating “dirty” (if you eat only McDonalds at a caloric deficit, you will lose weight).

You have some, but not all, control over the CO part of the equation. The part of CO that you can control is your daily activity levels, which affects how many calories you burn, and thus the CO part of the equation.

Yes, there are indeed genetic factors, hormonal factors, medical issues, and unmanageable lifestyle factors that affect the CO side of the equation. This means that there are uncontrollable variations from human to human in CO. A lot of the arguments against CICO highlight this, and in many cases they are correct.

But this doesn't change the law of CICO. At the end of the day, you can ALWAYS control the CI part of the equation. Even if you cry that your CO is higher or lower than is ideal, which can certainly be true, you can always adjust your CI to account for the CO.

In conclusion, I don't care who you are, your weight is 100% in your control. It really is as simple as eating less, or eating more. If it doesn’t work for you, it’s probably because you aren’t tracking your CI correctly. I guarantee that if you tracked them in detail and adjusted them based on your goal, your weight will change.

  1. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Does raw cocoa decrease appetite?

  2. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you eat only broccoli at a caloric surplus, you will die.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >broccoli at a caloric surplus
      i don't think it's feasible, even for 1 day

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      This.

      Does raw cocoa decrease appetite?

      I dunno. Maybe. I think so would chewing glass.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      lmk when you find the bro who asked

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >broccoli at a caloric surplus

  3. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    > Adjusting calories in does not also affect calories out
    Have you ever wondered why you felt like shit on diets? That's why

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >you can ALWAYS control the CI part of the equation
    I could imagine some people have medical conditions which forces them to choose/reject certain food
    Also
    You know
    Some people are poor

    otherwise ok

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Doesn't change the fact that you can control it. It's certainly not as easy for some people as it is for others for the way you described.

      I don't think there's an existing medical condition that forces anyone to eat at X calories per day.

      As for poor people, it's not expensive to eat a caloric deficit or at a caloric surplus.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I don't think there's an existing medical condition that forces anyone to eat at X calories per day.
        i don't mean this, I mean situations when you have to eat more calories to get just enough of specific nutrient and you can't eat food which is reach in that nutient, eg you need to get enough protein but can't eat meat or dairy
        However I can't make any real examples, I just thought this consideration worth mentioning

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Eggs and rice are some of the cheapest foods there are.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Regardless of medical conditions and wealth you can always eat less.

      If a 14in pizza is 2600 calories and your burning 1800 a day then it's cheaper to eat half a pizza at 1300 calories a day instead just as an example.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Some people are poor
      >eating less is expensive
      >>

  5. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    A calorie is a measurement of heat energy.

    Humans do not combust food to gain energy from it. We utilise a chemical reaction in the cell mitochondria to form atp.

    Energy balance theory is legitimate but calories can not account for how much energy an individual human can get from a given bolus of food.

    And then you have to factor in mitochondrial health and efficiency, digestive efficiency and so fourth.

    I just refuted CICO.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Great
      Now either eat more or eat less to account for the factors you described. CI is still controllable

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      So now the equation is slightly more complicated (in minority of population nonetheless), what does this have to do with refuting CICO?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      > Does not understand the difference between a nutritional calorie and a regular calorie
      > Does not acknowledge the CO part of CICO
      Okay, bro

  6. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    what do you guys get out of talking about this every day? I get the impression that people come here discussing CICO like it was some abstract mystical philosophical topic to ponder and argue over. But if you put it to practice its really simple, works every time and its pretty boring topic even. Do you motherfuckers even lift and count calories? Try it out for 4 months you'll be surprised

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Exactly. Too many people just make excuses for their failure to achieve their weight gain or loss goals. Accepting CICO should be liberating, because it means you have control over your weight. People just don't want to accept responsibility for their shitty decisions.

      >I don't think there's an existing medical condition that forces anyone to eat at X calories per day.
      i don't mean this, I mean situations when you have to eat more calories to get just enough of specific nutrient and you can't eat food which is reach in that nutient, eg you need to get enough protein but can't eat meat or dairy
      However I can't make any real examples, I just thought this consideration worth mentioning

      Fair, and there are also allergies that make CI more difficult. But it still doesn't disprove the CICO notion. No one is denying that there are varying degrees of difficulty, but it doesn't change the fact that you can control it. Even in the situations you are describing, the person with the most dietary restrictions in the world can still adapt their CI. It won't be easy, but it's still possible, thus controllable.

  7. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    CI influences CO and CO influences CI.
    technically anyone can lose weight if they simply didn't have access to food, nobody reasonable denies that. but that's worthless when you're talking to people who do have access to food.
    >your weight is 100% in your control
    plenty of people feel like absolute shit if they don't eat a certain amount of food per day. they would lose weight if they'd eat less, but they'd feel like fucking shit. if you felt the same, you wouldn't be able to lose weight either.
    you don't feel the same, so you may be in "control" of your weight, but there are plenty of things which you don't have control over that could be argued the same against. maybe you're not rich, successful, jacked, knowledgeable, respected by your family or community, etc. maybe you smoke, drink alcohol, do drugs, etc. you could be "in 100% control" of those things as well and not be such a waste of space. alas...

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      > plenty of people feel like absolute shit if they don't eat a certain amount of food per day. they would lose weight if they'd eat less, but they'd feel like fucking shit. if you felt the same, you wouldn't be able to lose weight either.
      It's still in their control. Just because something takes effort doesn't mean you can't accomplish it.

      >you don't feel the same, so you may be in "control" of your weight, but there are plenty of things which you don't have control over that could be argued the same against. maybe you're not rich, successful, jacked, knowledgeable, respected by your family or community, etc. maybe you smoke, drink alcohol, do drugs, etc. you could be "in 100% control" of those things as well and not be such a waste of space. alas...
      > maybe you're not rich, successful, jacked, knowledgeable, respected by your family or community, etc. maybe you smoke, drink alcohol, do drugs, etc
      These are false equivalences. I don't think you can compare what you listed with someone's ability to either put a little more or a little less food in their mouth

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >It's still in their control. Just because something takes effort doesn't mean you can't accomplish it.
        then why do you fail at all other aspects of life besides not being fat? it's in your control bro. it just takes some effort. you can accomplish it.
        >These are false equivalences.
        That's your narrowminded subjective view on it. Just because something's easy to you doesn't mean it's easy to others. And vice versa too. Just because something's easy for others doesn't mean it's easy to you.
        >to either put a little more or a little less food in their mouth
        Drugs can be life-destroying, but it's possible to quit them. Nobody can quit food. If someone has weight issues, they have to make the hard choice of not eating something that tastes good hundreds of times a day, every single day, for the rest of their lives. Which is coincidentally why "willpower" is retarded and an actual solution focuses on decreasing hunger, lack of satiety, and temptation. So eating whole foods instead of processed, drinking tea instead of snacking, and not having any food in the house that can easily be (over)eaten.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          > then why do you fail at all other aspects of life besides not being fat? it's in your control bro. it just takes some effort. you can accomplish it.
          You're making some pretty big assumptions here. How do you know I fail at those things? And even if I did fail, what makes you say that I make excuses as to why I fail? My net worth is in my control for example, and I know I can always work harder to get richer. But I'm not complaining that it's out of my control. I am aware of my own laziness getting in the way and not making excuses.

          > That's your narrowminded subjective view on it. Just because something's easy to you doesn't mean it's easy to others. And vice versa too. Just because something's easy for others doesn't mean it's easy to you.
          You're moving the goalposts. At no point did I say it was easy. Re-read my original post, I specifically acknowledge that it's harder for some than for others. But my point stands that even though there are varying levels of difficulty, it is still in everyone's control.

          > Drugs can be life-destroying, but it's possible to quit them. Nobody can quit food. If someone has weight issues, they have to make the hard choice of not eating something that tastes good hundreds of times a day, every single day, for the rest of their lives. Which is coincidentally why "willpower" is retarded and an actual solution focuses on decreasing hunger, lack of satiety, and temptation. So eating whole foods instead of processed, drinking tea instead of snacking, and not having any food in the house that can easily be (over)eaten.
          No one is saying you can quit food. All I'm saying is you can reduce or increase your intake by 100 calories a day, which over enough time will change your weight. That's not hard and no one is going to die by doing that lol.
          You're making a lot of excuses to explain someone's laziness. All those things you listed make it harder, I'm not denying that. Doesn't change that you can control it.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >All I'm saying is you can reduce or increase your intake by 100 calories a day, which over enough time will change your weight.
            That's objectively false though. There's a wide range in response to caloric intake. Studies have shown that while the averages fall roughly in line with predictions, individuals can respond very differently. E.g. putting people on a 250 (or 500?) kcal deficit causes some to lose more weight than predicted, some less, and some even gain weight. And for the surplus, some gain mostly fat, some gain mostly muscle, some stay the same, and some even lose weight.
            >That's not hard
            It would require meticulously tracking calories of everything you eat. That's a huge deal for most normal people. And 100 calories is so little, that you'd probably end up being off anyway due to measurement error.
            It's always the same dumb fucking shit with these "it's simple, you're just lazy/lack willpower" discussions. Fat people call smokers dumb and lazy, smokers call fat people dumb and lazy, drug addiction, poor background, adhd, depression, ocd, etc. Any specific group can only recognize the difficulties of dealing with their particular issue and calls all others dumb and lazy, while the other groups do the exact same thing.

            • 4 months ago
              Anonymous

              > That's objectively false though. There's a wide range in response to caloric intake. Studies have shown that while the averages fall roughly in line with predictions, individuals can respond very differently. E.g. putting people on a 250 (or 500?) kcal deficit causes some to lose more weight than predicted, some less, and some even gain weight. And for the surplus, some gain mostly fat, some gain mostly muscle, some stay the same, and some even lose weight.
              What matters isn't the absolute caloric intake, but the relative one. All those things you said are true, individuals do respond respond to different calorie intakes. But if you gain weight at 2500 calories a day when your friend Jimmy isn't, it means your CO is lower than he is and you should lower your CI.

              > It would require meticulously tracking calories of everything you eat.
              That's exactly the point. It requires effort, but it is possible for everyone. That's all CICO says you know.

              It's always the same dumb fucking shit with these "it's simple, you're just lazy/lack willpower" discussions. Fat people call smokers dumb and lazy, smokers call fat people dumb and lazy, drug addiction, poor background, adhd, depression, ocd, etc. Any specific group can only recognize the difficulties of dealing with their particular issue and calls all others dumb and lazy, while the other groups do the exact same thing.
              Ok but why do you keep talking about these other groups, we are purely talking about people making excuses for their weight.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >plenty of people feel like absolute shit if they don't eat a certain amount of food
      I am one of those and I'm cutting from september first. I argue more with my wife and I am less patient with my kids, but whenever I feel I am about explode I go for a run, take a hot bath or listen to a relaxing guided meditation and... Guess what?
      I already lost 3 kg and you are a gay.

  8. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    calories are a unit of measurement that is INCONSEQUENTIAL to human beings because that unit of measurement says nothing about how food is digested and absorbed by the body. so, what matters? you said it; macronutrient distribution. you can eat 7000 calories of fat and you won't gain as much weight as the moron who eats nothing but snickers and coca-cola every day. I dare you to try it. eat nothing but butter, olives, and avocado for a month, see how that works out for you.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      > alories are a unit of measurement that is INCONSEQUENTIAL to human beings because that unit of measurement says nothing about how food is digested and absorbed by the body
      True, calories are arbitrary units of energy measure

      > so, what matters? you said it; macronutrient distribution
      In terms of what? They do matter in terms of overall health,. In terms of weight gain or loss, they affect the CO part of the equation. CICO still stands.

      > you can eat 7000 calories of fat and you won't gain as much weight as the moron who eats nothing but snickers and coca-cola every day. I dare you to try it. eat nothing but butter, olives, and avocado for a month, see how that works out for you.
      Yes, me and that person might burn different amounts of calories due to hormones, genetics, NEET, exercise, lifestyle factors. Maybe he burns 7500 calories a day, and I burn 2000. That doesn't change the fact that I can adapt my CI and eat 1900 calories a day to lose weight

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      > alories are a unit of measurement that is INCONSEQUENTIAL to human beings because that unit of measurement says nothing about how food is digested and absorbed by the body
      True, calories are arbitrary units of energy measure

      > so, what matters? you said it; macronutrient distribution
      In terms of what? They do matter in terms of overall health,. In terms of weight gain or loss, they affect the CO part of the equation. CICO still stands.

      > you can eat 7000 calories of fat and you won't gain as much weight as the moron who eats nothing but snickers and coca-cola every day. I dare you to try it. eat nothing but butter, olives, and avocado for a month, see how that works out for you.
      Yes, me and that person might burn different amounts of calories due to hormones, genetics, NEET, exercise, lifestyle factors. Maybe he burns 7500 calories a day, and I burn 2000. That doesn't change the fact that I can adapt my CI and eat 1900 calories a day to lose weight

      > > so, what matters? you said it; macronutrient distribution
      In terms of what? They do matter in terms of overall health,. In terms of weight gain or loss, they affect the CO part of the equation. CICO still stands.
      Sorry I misread your post and thought you said micronutrients. Yes, macros matter in determining type of weight gain or loss (is it fat or is it muscle). But in terms of the number on the scale, that's just based on CICO.

  9. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ever see a fat person at Auschwitz? Exactly. The example is extreme, but it shows that CICO governs everything. Remove enough food from someone's diet and/or overwork them to cause them to burn more calories, and they will lose weight. It's laughable that people argue against the most basic law of physics.

  10. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    the amount of energy you burn as a default is variable
    the amount of energy you can absorb from food as a default is slightly variable
    the amount of food that you feel you require to feel satiated is highly variable

    So yes, CICO works as a basic principle, but it's an oversimplification. Obviously some people with infinite access to food will be fatter than others. The factors that control the weight that you "naturally" tend towards are still relevant when discussing weight loss.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      > So yes, CICO works as a basic principle, but it's an oversimplification.
      Never said it wasn't an oversimplification. But all the caveats you stated can be dealt with by either eating more or eating less to accommodate for them.

  11. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    gay retard spouting CICO is like saying if you lift you’ll grow muscle. Yeah obviously but it’s also way more complicated than that. For example, your hormones, appetite effects aside, can influence how many calories you burn in a neutral state.

    Here’s an irrefutable example. If two twins eat 2k calories a day but one takes adderall, the one who takes adderall will be lighter. Not because they are eating less calories, but because adderall, despite having 0 calories, effects the CO in CICO.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      > For example, your hormones, appetite effects aside, can influence how many calories you burn in a neutral state.
      Did you read the OP? I mentioned all of those things and said that they were true. They all affect the CO part of the equation. The CO is variable for everyone, no one denies that. But the CI is within your control. So figure out your unique CO, which is based on all the factors you described, and adjust your CI accordingly to either gain or lose weight. Not that hard.

      > Here’s an irrefutable example. If two twins eat 2k calories a day but one takes adderall, the one who takes adderall will be lighter. Not because they are eating less calories, but because adderall, despite having 0 calories, effects the CO in CICO.
      > but because adderall, despite having 0 calories, effects the CO in CICO.
      You literally just proved your own irrefutable example wrong. The CO is being manipulated by the twin taking adderall, so that's why their weight is changing. It doesn't disprove CICO at all. The twin taking adderall can eat more calories to make up the greater CO.

  12. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    A wide variety of diseases affect how well you absorb nutrients
    An example from my life, i have type 1 beetus. if i dont take enough insulin/am insulin resistant for whatever reason/my ins is expired/a million other things, a lot of the calories i eat end up in my piss. Thus, i lose weight despite eating at "caloric surplus"
    Many people do not have diabetes but have some onsulin resistance and piss sugar out. Many people have missing or defective gut enzymes (e.g. lactose intolerance) that impede their ability to break down and process certain proteins, carbohydrates or fats. Nutrients that arent broken down can end up shitted out unused.
    Think of the last time you ate corn and saw it in your poop the next day. There are calories in the bits you see, energy stored in the chemical bonds holding the cellulose structure of the kernel together. A calorimeter would include this energy in the "calorie count" that you read on nutrition facts.
    This is to say nothing of the fact that weight gain is influenced greatly by hormones. Cortisol, insulin, norepinephrine, the hormones that control your sleep cycle all influence the rate and efficiency at which nutrients are absorbed as well as the body's ability to store excess energy. I am not a biochemist, but some research on how different people gain weight would shed more light on this
    Basically, there is no way to know how many calories are coming in or out, its much more complicated than the number on the nutrition label minus exercise and basal metabolic rate

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      All those things you listed are accounted for by the CO part of the equation.

      > Basically, there is no way to know how many calories are coming in or out, its much more complicated than the number on the nutrition label minus exercise and basal metabolic rate
      Correct, you can't know the CO part for sure, and I have repeated that ad nauseum. The only part of the equation you have full control over is CI, but that's all you need. You can figure out your regular CO (that are affected by the factors you described) and either eat less, or eat more to get the result you want.

  13. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    I can debunk CICO with one single study.

    >same protein
    >same fat
    >same carbs
    >same total calories
    >same micronutrients
    >DIFFERENT body composition
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22863169/

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22863169/
      Wow, who knew that specific food choices could affect the CO side of the equation?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nobody who believes in CICO ever knew that.

  14. 4 months ago
    SAEG

    > At the end of the day, you can ALWAYS control the CI part of the equation.
    >, I don't care who you are, your weight is 100% in your control.
    The second statement does not logically follow from the first.
    Please die in a fire; but if you cannot manage that, then you must go back and study rules of logical inference and rational thought.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      > The second statement does not logically follow from the first.
      Can you explain why not? You can't always control CO (see the multitude of examples in this thread). We all know this. But your CO isn't a mystical number that isn't quantifiable. It is quantifiable for everyone, whether yours is 2000, 2500, or 3000 calories a day. If you control your CI according to your CO, you will control your weight. Simple as.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        You can reduce your metabolism with calorie restriction, but any weight loss will be only temporary.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          > You can reduce your metabolism with calorie restriction, but any weight loss will be only temporary.
          Human psychology at work. After a period of caloric restriction/starvation, it's really easy to loosen up your diet a little too much and relax, causing you to eat more calories than you should.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah especially since caloric restriction obliterates metabolism. Eating the same amount as a lean person will cause obesity to recur.

            And with the metabolism constantly lowering you have to keep lowering intake to stay ahead of it. That's why people who restrict calories usually dont even make their goal weight.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          That study is automatically negated by the millions of people who go into old age without gaining a pound. A lot of old people actually lose weight.

  15. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >drink 2L of water
    >0 calories
    >gain 2kg

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >pee 0.5L of pee
      >drink pee
      >still +2kg

  16. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is there a maximum number of calories the body can incorporate in a day?

    That is, is there at point where up to that point, eating more calories leads to more weight gain, but beyond that point, it does not?

    That is, do you get a function like the image?

    The reason I ask is because I was wondering if you might as well go all out on a day of breaking your diet. Is eating an extra 2,000 calories the same as eating an extra 5,000 or 10,000 as long as you only do it one day?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Is there a maximum number of calories the body can incorporate in a day?
      Clearly not, just look at all these extremely obese people.
      All the excess calories are going to fat.

  17. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    CICO is the law, you can’t argue against thermodynamics
    >but muh-
    don’t care it’s in your head. If you can’t control yourself you’re barely above an animal

  18. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    You can't refute calories in you should say, cico as a whole is a dangerous concept which leads people to metabolically fuck themself up and become sick due to eating pufa laced fast food, a fit person doing catabolic endurance exercise and eating fast food fad keto meal after is about as unhealthy as a sedentary obese person, actually the obese person is healthier because being sedentary and eating sweets presumably, doesn't release your stored pufa from you tissues but the ketogenic marathon runner is constantly doing that and aging like milk.

  19. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >muh thermodynamics
    lol, fuck off retard. Calorie counting advocate shitheads should be shot on sight. Or tortured and trauma programmed, thrown in a labor camp or somthing. There's your "CICO" dumbass, have fun starving to death.

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