>YOU
>SHALL
>NOT
>VIOLATE THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS
Why are you stupid fricks like this? You do know that calories in/calories out isn't the only factor when it comes to weight loss, right? Don't try to pretend you're like scientists or something.
It's all that matters.
If you metabolism slows, eat less.
There were no fatties at Auschwitz
>There were no fatties at Auschwitz
actually there were but thats before the food supplies dried up from the ally bombings, but that isnt really the point of the thread
I'm glad you brought up Auschwitz, as it's well known that POWs who underwent long term caloric restriction during captivity developed lifelong metabolic disorders that led to hypogonadism and hypothyroidism.
What % of your TDEE is your BMR? Is BMR constant?
>What % of your TDEE is your BMR?
I've no idea. I don't need to know that to count calories
>Is BMR constant?
Of course not.
TDEE and BMR vary from person to person and over time. This is irrelevant to cICO so long as you monitor your progress. Begin with whatever values the online calculators suggest for your weight loss/gain goal and then adjust based on how you respond. If after a few weeks you're not losing weight because your BMR is lower than the population average (or more likely you're not estimating the number of calories consumed or intensity of physical activity correctly) then just lower the CI until you begin losing weight. If a after a few months of progress your weight loss plateaus because your BMR has decreased as a result of your reduced body mass then decrease CI again.
>If a after a few months of progress your weight loss plateaus because your BMR has decreased as a result of your reduced body mass then decrease CI again.
It's fascinating how not complicated this, if you want to lose weight, be in a constant calorie deficit, if you are trying to bulk up, for whatever reason, constantly be in a calorie surplus, a boxer from the 1920s could explain this to the average person today and they would get it
>I've no idea. I don't need to know that to count calories
What's important is that, even for extreme athletes (think professional boxers during the peak of their training camp), BMR always makes up a majority (>50%) of TDEE.
>Of course not.
I'm glad you acknowledge that, yet you and
both make the same mistake in comprehending metabolic dysfunction - something that all overweight people have, whether it's a cause or an effect of them becoming overweight.
The idea is not that people have a low, but constant, metabolic rate that they can overcome by just reducing their caloric intake by more than the average person, but rather that their metabolic rate is *directly proportional* to the calories that they consume. This is not even to mention how often metabolic dysfunction goes hand in hand with broader hormone dysfunction, leading to things like muscle being preferentially catabolized over fat. With all of this in mind, do you understand why simple CICO isn't the solution you think it is?
>developed lifelong metabolic disorders that led to hypogonadism and hypothyroidism.
No shit, starving in a pow camp isn't good for you, but they lost the weight.
Calories in calories out.
Do this slowly and you won't rape your metabolism
*cuts your arms and legs*
Now you weigh less kiddo
In the calorie cultist's mind, obese people can have higher and lower metabolic rates simultaneously. Truly astonishing the levels of cope one must have to follow this religion.
> slowing down metabolism
According to your scientists that’s the main reason why amongst former fatties almost nobody stays lean after 5 years
Thanks for playing though
Energy goes in, energy goes out.
Pretty simple, dude.
moron
> You do know that calories in/calories out isn't the only factor when it comes to weight loss, right?
It literally is though.
it is though. The only other factor is the type of weight you lose, as in eating like shit and simply cutting down on the amount of shit will make you lose much more muscle with your fat than if you cut down and replaced the shit with proper food. Exceptions are people with clear illnesses.
These calorie police couldn't tell you how a calorie is supposed to translate to fat mass loss to save their lives. (Protip: photons do not have mass)
One, photons do have mass. Two, the carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen that make up the organic molecules in your food also have mass, and their Food Energy is measured in Calories.
LOL
Stopped at your first joke, clown. I'm being serious, no time for jokes
40pkt
>In a thermodynamic process involving a closed system (no transfer of matter), the increment in the internal energy is equal to the difference between the heat accumulated by the system and the thermodynamic work done by it.
Doesnt apply to humans. We are not a closed system.
my homie here evolved into a plant and is siphoning gainz directly from the sun through photosynthesis
>closed system (no transfer of matter)
yeah applying this to humans is indeed moronic
yep lets pretend the latent heat in the water you piss out and sweat breaks our approximation and I can stuff my face with cake all day because the matter transformed into poop
CICO deboonked
mass in mass out not calories
You didn't comprehend what I was making a joke about, you don't need a mass balance to make a good approximation for this
lol you can use a calculator to calculate TDEE (energy going out), or you can do this by eating less and measuring your weight weekly to see if your TDEE calculation needs to be lowered or raised.
We invented a solution to that, it's called ozempic/zepbound
yeah lets just permanantly petrify the stomach, what could go wrong!
can't be worse than having to pay for the Hispanic nig cycle.
They’re stupid. That’s why. CICO is obviously left, but that fact implies there’s a metabolic rate that determines calories, which goes totally ignored in favor of the CI part of the equation. And that’s just because they’re dumb. It’s that simple. They don’t actually want to dig into the research on metabolic rate, hormones, how accurate calorie estimates for food are. Honestly, the fact that CICO is legit means that the single best thing you can do for weight loss is to optimize your metabolic rate and thus stimulate CO but that isn’t simple or obvious.
>calories in/calories out
Well technically yeah, thats all there is to it distilled to four words. A power word rage for use on fatties.
Most homosexuals do forget that calories out is also a variable that changes, making the burn rate variable. There is certainly nuance to be had about fat loss but statement is still true.
>t.basedentist
also ywnbaw
Not only is the burn rate variable but the rate conversion to input is variable. Most people do not even realize that when you eat a apple which is said to have x calories, x calories isn’t precisely what the input is and it’s not even the case that said apple really does have x calories. This is why CICO is moronic. It’s not that CICO is wrong per se. It’s what it implies. What people think CICO means is “just count the calories you eat”. Not only can you not actually do that, but it’s just an objective fact that the metabolic burn rate has an outsized effect when it comes to tipping the scale. Why should I focus on “counting” a whole bunch of food that I’m not even really counting but am rather estimating based on calculations which in any given food may or may not be right and which may or may not translate to that exact number of calories input, when I could just maximize the rate at which my calories go out, which, by the way, is also manipulated by the calories going in. So the advice sucks. People should eat to metabolically optimize. That’s the real CICO red pill advice, and frankly, they should metabolically optimize with methods other than diet first. If you’re metabolic rate is dog shit and you don’t exercise and your hormones are pathetic and all that, then focusing on “calories in” is like majoring in the minors.
You aren't wrong. CICO has huge error bars that people people should be aware of and at the end of the day it has to be adjusted depending on results. If you are sure you counted everything but are not getting the results you thought you would, then the model needs to be adjusted for you. Perhaps your gut bacteria liberates more nutrients in specific foods, perhaps some product was mislabelled. I would think it is obvious that you have to compare model to reality and adjust.
Personally I just do intermittent fasting or one meal a day for cutting. This way there is nothing to misscount, nor is counting required. When the deficit is 2000 calories you will lose weight.
It’s not even the error bias that is essential. Over long time periods, counting calories can reduce calorie intake effectively. The real issue is the shock to the metabolic rate.
Not at all. What I’m saying is that when people say “CICO” what they really mean is “if you want to lose weight, all you have to do is eat fewer calories” but that’s objectively not true. The poster above already highlighted why eating fewer calories isn’t as simple or obvious as people might think and it contains a large degree of error, but more importantly, that assumption, that it’s just about eating more or less calories is just objectively false. We know for a fact that caloric reduction can lower metabolic rate. If that’s true, it literally means that as you eat fewer calories, you also burn fewer, lower CI, but lower CO, no weight lost. That brings me to the point that CICO does not imply that the rate of CO is static. In fact we know it’s not and that’s not only because of exercise. Hormones play a huge role here, non-exercise activity plays a huge role here, and actually diet plays a huge role here, all of these things can raise or lower metabolic rate and thus CO. So think about that. You have this equation, CICO. You can manipulate one side of that equation to lose weight. You can either focus on lowering CI, or raising CO. We know that there is a degree to which lowering CI will suppress CO. Is there a degree to which focusing on CO and raising CO will raise CI? Well, no, actually there’s not. So just from a strictly logical point of view, which side of that equation is best to attack? The CO part? If you raise your metabolic rate and generally raise CO, you’re far better off because you don’t run the risk of pushing CI up by doing so. And even if you did, the fact that CO is being raised in essence towards infinity, means CI can go higher and as long as CO is greater, you lose weight. Meanwhile, CI can only get so low.
>it contains a large degree of error
Well no, Humans make errors in the calculations. It’s not anything wrong with how calories are measured. If you wear a smartwatch and see you burn 2,000 calories a day, eat 1,500 and you should lost about one pound of fat a week on average until you get to a weight where that becomes your maintenance calories and you need to eat even less to maintain a lower weight or exercise even more. It’s really not that hard, really studying kinesiology is much more difficult. I spent months becoming a certified personal trainer and nutrition coach. Studying and memorizing individual workouts and how doing them in a certain position highlights specific muscle imbalances goes way into depth than basic math.
>people who think kinesiology and personal training are difficult are weighing in on metabolism
I think I understand now why spam is the best response CICO-tards can muster
>What I’m saying is that when people say “CICO” what they really mean is “if you want to lose weight, all you have to do is eat fewer calories” but that’s objectively not true.
No. What they mean is that you have to "eat fewer calories than you burn", and that is fricking true.
Yes, caloric restriction can lower your metabolic rate but it has never been shown to lower it by an amount greater than the reduction in calories consumed - if you eat less and maintain the same level if physical activity then you WILL lose weight, maybe not by as much as you might predict if your metabolism stayed the same but it will happen.
You can neither reliably calculate the calories entering or exiting your body. That's what being an open system means, midwit
You can count them accurately enough for the purposes of gaining or losing weight, dipshit.
You absolutely cannot. You need to prove you can count it, which is impossible. Your weight loss is incidental and unrelated to your attempts at measuring your energy balance. Food doesn't magically appear at the grocery store either, if you're confused about simple shit like this. God, tards like you should be banned from the internet, there's too many of you for tard wranglers to keep you in check!
>eat less
>lose weight
>eat more
>gain weight
>some hamplanet on IST thinks the connection between these things is entirely incidental
Lmao keep stuffing your fat face until your gravitational field makes you implode.
Again, just because you assert that your magical cico god bestowed you with fat loss for staying true to your beliefs, it doesn't make it a reality. Other forces are at play that a simple mind cannot comprehend (too bad for you). Also, the biggest loser study shows that, while you are probably still morbidly obese, you will never reliably stay at a healthy weight following your cult if you even manage to reach one. Sad!
so you're basically saying "it's not cico, it's actualy cico but with extra factors like optimizing your diet/hormone levels/exercise routine/nutritional knowledge". It's still the same principle bro, no matter what you do to your body, whether it's living like nicogaygo or like a professional millionaire athlete, it will always boil down to how much is going into your body vs how much you're burning
You can adjust your macros monthly if you’re not losing (or gaining) weight to account for your individual metabolic health.
Changing your macros will have significantly less effect on your metabolic rate than taking exogenous hormones.
>CICO is wrong because they might not put the same amount of mayo on my 10 daily mcchickens and therefore it's impossible to know how much I'm eating
This whole post is fatty cope
Post body before you type up another seething essay
The changes are mostly very minor, hence why you should account for maybe at least 100-200 extra calories if you’re losing or gaining weight beyond that a tdee calculator gets you, just to be safe. Also you must be very careful when adding up calories in myfitnesspal or a similar app, as some of the entries people make aren’t accurate and people usually don’t add up small parts of their daily intake like a tablespoon of butter, a bunch of sprinkles on top of ice cream and other things that can negate the difference between losing a small bit of weight and maintaining your current weight.
>You do know that calories in/calories out isn't the only factor when it comes to weight loss, right?
but it is, though
>BUT BUT BUT WHAT ABOUT
thats just part of the calories in/out
let me guess you think that eating 1000 calories of sugar will make you gain weight while 1000 calories of vegetables will make you lose it
is that what you are implying based moron?
You are fricking stupid.
Based. The notion that a calorie is a calorie is a disgusting insult to our intelligence and the entire premise of nutrition in general. A calorie of steak is superior in every way to a calorie of your nasty chicken nugget you fat onions consuming fricks
Stop being such a fricking sperg. Screeching about thermodynamics means fricking nothing when people have food addictions, mental health issues and shit like intense hormone fluctuations affecting how much they eat and how much their body burns. A lot of weirdos on here think because they're morbidly obese and 6ft and losing weight on 2000kcal that a fat woman can do the same. While most women would balloon up with 2000kcal unless they exercise a lot. Put your autism aside and recognise that yes CICO but also human fricking beings are more complex than that. That's what everyone has been fricking saying but you're too damn moronic to realize. When Karen's womb is raping it's skin off and turning her into a raging greasy teenager for a week every month she isn't going to give a frick about thermodynamics while reaching for the chocolate ice cream that alleviates the pain she's in. Instead of screeching about that we need to find ways to help people. Fricking Halo Top did more for women's weight loss than all of you raging tards combined.
The fact that some fat bawd lacks willpower does not change fundamental physical truths.
>tldr: Skill issue
The first time I saw this >lmao you cant violate the laws of thermodynamics
Shit on here I thought the poster was joking
Then I kept seeing it and was like oh shit theyre serious
They really think the human body works like that
It's like the Chinese in the 19th century were still, medically speaking, in the 5th century and the Brits who were in HK and Canton were like
What the actualy frick
Gem on the log
I'll add this to various points ITT.
A calorie is a unit of measurement. It doesn't matter what you call it, a calorie, a joule or your own invented unit.
It doesn't matter that the body up and down regulates your metabolism or that it differs.
Absorption rate, nutrient allocations etc. doesn't matter either.
About now the brainlets are doing to get mad, all of this doesn't matter to what? The concept of preservation of energy. Every deviation from the the simplest conception of CICO can be accounted for if you wanted to, it's a problem of chemical bond energy that's being converted into mechanical energy and heat. You can add correction factors where ever you want, have fun trying to accurately quantify all of this btw.
In practice however assuming your diet isn't moronic and is standardized to some degree, and your cardio/lifting is also standardized, CICO as a concept is self correcting. You take a well educated guess at x amount of calories of good foods with sound macros, then eat it and observe y weight loss. You then adjust. It really is this simple.
Generally if you don't eat like shit, hunger levels tends to auto-regulate to about a maintenance level.
Dumbest post in the thread.
Your diet advice is shit and instead of addressing why or how people get obese eating the same quantities of the same types of food as others of normal size, you assert they must lower their intake. Hry, moron, fat burning is controlled by hormones, not inches or whatever the frick you want to arbitrarily assign to your accidental weight loss. You binge because you eat like a pig to be slaughtered instead of a person.
If we could see a photo attached to each poster that denies cico works we'd see they are all fat asses. If anyone is annoyed by this fact is because they can't put down the fork or are shit at counting calories.
Drop the avocadoes, the olive oil, the nuts, the dark chocolate and all those foods you're told that are super healthy. Reality is they are very caloric and you can never be satiated with them. Say hello to lean meat, eggs, high fiber veggies, legumes, protein shakes. Don't fricking add oil to your salad. Don't eat processed foods. Don't eat anything you don't prepare yourself. Always overestimate the calories you eat. Data tends to be inaccurate or is described in a confusing way on purpose. If you can't get full by eating grilled chicken then have it with lettuce, tomatoes, spinach. Add fiber in order to add volume.
>THERMODYNAMICS
What? Stop it, I'm not a fire.
Turn it off.
>You do know that calories in/calories out isn't the only factor when it comes to weight loss, right?
What other factors are there?
>TRUST THE SOIENCE
>including the law of thermodynamics?
>EXCEPT THAT ONE
>IT MAKES ME FEEL BAD AND ICKYPOOEY
Incels try to larp as scientists but are actually IQ 89. The result is always entertaining.
CICO cultists are mentally ill, look at all the fricking Bibles they wrote here, no reasonable person is reading any of that. You people need help.
this doesn't change the fact that if you want to lose weight you should eat less and/or exercise more
>b-but what if I ate only granulated sugar?
ok maybe don't be a fricking moron?
It does, the body is governed by hormone balance, which drives people to actually give up their energy stores, as well as driving people to binge on junk food and accumulate unnecessarily high amounts of fat in the first place. The body is far more intelligent than those behind the peak of the bell curve give it credit for.
You can lose weight eating more mass and exercising less depending on your metabolic health and hormonal production capabilities. Fat people in general are malnourished when it comes to what's needed to produce the hornones necessary to burn fat, too.
Nutrient dense foods are the solution for the obesity epidemic and telling diseased people to starve is peak ignorance/malace
maybe I'm just not American enough to understand being so stupid that you only eat empty calories, eating whole foods in any diet is such an obvious given that it's not even worth saying. If you start counting calories brecause somebody told you about CICO but you still eat nothing but junk food the world would probably be better off without you, because even the worst lardball knows deep down that the shit they gorge on is garbage for the body in any quantity
I didn't say whole foods you fricking moron. NUTRIENT-DENSE. Sit your developing nation ass back down.
Tell you what. Go ahead and starve yourself for a whole month. Only water. And if you don’t lose a single pound, I’ll admit that CICO is just fraud pseudoscience and my entire view on weight loss is completely wrong.
Your move.
Fasting is ketogenic btw.
>You do know that calories in/calories out isn't the only factor when it comes to weight loss, right?
Sure, it's not the only factor, but it's the only factor that applies ALL THE TIME so concentrating on other factors in attempt to ignore this most primary factor(this is what body positivity etc. fatties do) is simply fricking moronic.
Do you even understand what CICO means? It's like saying water is wet. It's not dietary advice and any supposed application is incedental, as humans are not closed systems. Stop talking and listen when a black woman is speaking
CICObots want (You) to eat like DOGs.
I feed my cat meat. She's healthier than CICO cats I've seen. Poor kitties
Daily reminder that CICObots think humans and steam engines are functionally identical. They claim this is normal and logical.
flat earth general
I hate the muh le hecking science!!!!! Crowd so much
Yes your little thermo law (as if any of you gays actually understand any of them) is truthful. But. Not. Useful.
>b-but I lost weight
Correlation =/= causality
>the virgin dichotomous argumenteer
v
>the chad “i found what works for me”
I just wanna say that if you're American, everything you know about nutrition is wrong. You know NOTHING. The only way to fix it is admitting you're clueless.
You have NO good culinary tradition (except burgers)
Your supermarket food is poisoned
Most of your population is overweight or obese
FDA is comically evil
Terrible fad diets
Prescription meds
Unironically if you wanna learn anything that's not complete bullshit move to Europe for a year. Any country (except UK obviously). You'll eat better in Lithuania, you'll eat better in Portugal, you'll eat better in Albania.
>America nutrition bad
>Europe nutrition good
>refuses to elaborate
>leaves
I lived in Europe. It's literally not any better.
It's literally better in every way.
If you compare it to India it's marginally better
Don't drink the water when visiting third-world shitholes like those.
Don't drink tap water period
>84 replies
Man this board is full of whales
Here’s a link to the fasting general for you fat gays
Kek, seething currycel can't wrap his peanut head around nutrition. I will eat meat, including beef, and you cannot stop me. You will always be an Indian.
>You should put more gasoline in your car than how much you use by driving it if you want to keep driving it
YEAH???
GASOLINE IN GASOLINE OUT???
WHAT ABOUT THE WEIGHT OF THE CAR
HOW MANY PASSENGERS ARE IN THE CAR
I BET YOU THINK DRIVING OVER A POT HOLE COUNTRY ROAD IS THE SAME AS DRIVING ON THE AUTOBAHN
WHAT ABOUT THE AIR PRESSURE AND THE GRAVITATIONAL PULL OF THE EARTH
IS THE CAR RED OR BLACK
HUMANS ARE NOT CARS
THE TRANSFORMERS IS NOT A DOCUMENTARY
>Dumb Black person never puts oil in his car because gas in, gas out
Yeah, you're this moronic.
>umm calories in and calories out????
>but how does this account for humans needing air????