CICO utterly defeated

I know this thread is bait but honestly anti-cico people piss me off cause the fact that no body builder uses their methods to get under 5% bodyfat proves that cico is supreme

If only those molecules you ingested were then stored into other molecules and then broken down and consumed as ATP. Alas, CICO eternally btfo, all hail Dr. OP and his infinite wisdom

>>76373618 (OP)
you also believe the earth is flat?

>>76373632
>no body builder uses restrictive diets that achieve cico utilizing more nuanced aspects of nutrition & bioenergetics
What I hate about pro-cico dipshits is the reductionist cock sucking. As if "CICO DID IT" is a detailed enough answer to mean fuck all. No shit cico works, HOW ARE YOU ACHIEVING IT RETARD!

op is right tho your body doesn't burn calories that's not how it works cico would be a decent concept if you had no concept whatsoever of the human body

>>76373647
Explain to me why australians arent falling off then, you cant

>>76373618 (OP)
>chi-tier pseudoscience
Made me kek & kinda has a point. It's not as though that's anywhere near equivalent to how energy is processed in the body.

>>76373651
>your body doesn't burn calories
oxidation is burning

>how much energy it takes to burn

>>76373664
>thinking this simply
This is why cico is dumb.

>>76373618 (OP)
>twitter screenshot
>blue checkmark
if I wanted to use that website I'd be on that website.
Anyway didn't read don't care post body lardass

>>76373679
But you do use it.

>>76373674
>failing high school chem this badly
This is why anyone who uses "CICO" as a noun is dumb.

>>76373649
>HOW ARE YOU ACHIEVING IT RETARD!
Cico.

>>76373691
>>76373664
Oxidation is a broader chemical concept involving electron loss, and burning is just one specific case of fast oxidation that produces fire. You're technically right & technically retarded.

>>76373618 (OP)
uhhhhhh, no, retard

>>76373618 (OP)
Counting calories is kabbalah for people with an eating disorder. Anyone with a brain can tell CICO is bullcrap.

>>76373618 (OP)
Ok well the reason you're fat is still because you eat too much.

>>76373618 (OP)
tl;dr CICO works, u big mad

>>76373618 (OP)
Cellular breathing is a type of combustion, just like burning. I swear it's like people genuinely skipped all of hs bio.

>>76373618 (OP)
>people unironically take advice from people like this

If cico isn't real why is it real?

>>76373664
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6WTE1BatfM&pp=ygUNYmFydCBrYXkgY2ljbw%3D%3D

>>76373649
>track calories
>did I lose weight this week?
>yes, great
>no, lower calories check next week

>>76373632
This is the bait and switch people hate.
CICOtards will say "calories are all that matters bro quality means nothing" then you show them people who use quality to reach single digit BF and they say "well where's their caloric surplus CICO wins again".
No one is saying calories mean nothing but to say calories are the sole aspect of nutrition is silly.

>>76374003
>ask God to win the lottery
>don't win
>pray harder

>>76374036
>non sequitur
>lmao owned

>>76374010
Are you just being retarded as bait?

>>76374010
>No one is saying calories mean nothing but to say calories are the sole aspect of nutrition is silly.
because nobody said that retard, they said calories are the sole aspect of gaining and losing weight
literally what cico guy said micronutrients are fake?

>>76373635
what if you could
measure those molecules
in some manner
we could call them
a "calory"

>>76373618 (OP)
this is typical xitter engagement bait.
but regarding point 1, as it hasn't been mentioned ITT yet:
food calories are determined a bit (but not much) more sophisticated than simply in a calorimeter. the macros and fiber are taken into account. calories you can release by literally burning the food, but are not accessible to the body through digestion aren't counted.

>>76373651
that’s not how calories are measured on food labels

>No twinkstalker spam
>keto schizo spam picks up
Wow what a coincidence. He'll probably post a twinkbait now that I've said this though.

>>76373618 (OP)
>>76374443
whatcha doin' rabbi??

>>76374057
>calories are the sole aspect of gaining and losing weight
Then explain why bodybuilders, as >>76373632 refers to, follow very specific diets in order to get under 5% bodyfat, instead of only focusing on their caloric intake?

>CICO doesn't work

>>76375443
ketoschizo cant read anymore? notice i said weight? weight is both muscle and fat

>>76375485
He's probably had a handful of keto-induced ministrokes over the years from his retarded meme diet. Very common with ketolards. Sad!

I've been on cico/1900cals for 37 days now and after gaining 5lbs from apparent water retention, I'm down exactly 1lb.

>>76373618 (OP)
CICO doesnt work properly if your hormones are all fucked.

Your hormones are fucked because of a bad diet and lifestyle. Get shit in order and it will work just fine.

>>76373618 (OP)
All of his ramblings are irrelevant given the fact that a calorie deficit will make you lose weight.

>>76375596
>if I cut my leg off I lose weight therefore CICO is real
Nice

>>76375611
Cutting your legs off makes you lose weight, yes.

>>76375617
But it doesn't mean it's a good way to lose weight, just like counting your imaginary steam engine power units.

>>76375620
>you're not losing weight THE RIGHT WAY
Goalpost shifting. You lose weight in a calorie deficit. Therefore, it works as advertised.

>>76375445
after half a year of mainly ribeyes, dairy and eggs, I've actually started getting physically ill when watching those disgusting videos

>>76375589
I doubt he even does keto. He is addicted to spamming repetitive shit on 4chan and he knows that keto vs cico is guaranteed (you)s. Look at his dumbass arguments. He's not even serious.

>>76373618 (OP)
My car doesn't burn gallons, it burns *gasoline*. Therefore how many gallons I put in doesn't matter.

>CICO IS BULLSHIT
somehow yet you can calculate a calorie amount and eat different foods but still lose average amount of weighth per week following that calorie amount

>>76373618 (OP)
None of the anti cico people can explain how that nutrition professor lost a bunch of weight by eating only junk like oreos and twinkies and shit.

>>76375891
You can also lose weight by starving or gain weight eating Uranium if you follow CICO as it is. CICO is completely meaningless, calories are just a small part of the puzzle.

>>76375626
I cannot watch that garbage either; some friends tried to get me onto muckbang vids, its just terrible and you see how sad and pathetic they are in the pursuit of money & notoriety.
t. meat, eggs and dairy daily diet also.

gave up cico and went keto. shits awesome. i love going to the carvery and getting roast pork with crackling and eating till i feel full and STILL lose weight. it's metabolic sorcery i tell you

I like this talk about it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxyxcTZccsE

You could start at 39 minutes.

>>76375931
But its not a puzzle, not a hard one at least. How does ozempic work? Its that simple. The less you eat the less you weigh. This is why starvation is a thing.

>>76375931
The energy contained in Uranium is not bioavailable, so the calories in part is 0. Ya dum dum.

>>76375950
>it's metabolic sorcery i tell you
it's not. you just end up eating less calories because avoiding carbs improves leptin-grelin ratio

>>76375620
>good way
Stupid vague meaningless language. It's an effective way as even the faggit in the OP image admits.

>>76375931
Obvious CICO applies to usable energy. But since you're an autist I'll spell it out for it with something called CICOCU (The U is unusable).
>E_in + E_unusable = E_out + E_unusuable
Since the unusable energy occurs on both sides, we simply write CICO for short. You seriously cannot understand this?

>>76375950
>it's metabolic sorcery i tell you
You crap out everything over about 1000cal of protein a day. It's kind of like bulimia.

>>76376771
only if your digestion sucks

>>76376771
>CICO cultist trying not to spitball random numbers
challenge level: impossible

>>76373618 (OP)
Maybe I'm behind the times but it still blows my mind how social media gives people this insane ego to believe they have something incredible to say that everyone needs to hear. I feel like this post is the most generic template for a social media post:
>"Um ackshully, this common sense thing that everyone knows is wrong because it's just dumb lol"
>[Totally unrelated observation that is intended to sound smart even though a middle schooler could understand it]
You know this faggot retard was so smug and self-satisfied posting this garbage.

>>76373618 (OP)
>redox reactions can't be measured
>what is chemical potential energy?
>everything done in the field of alchemy/chemistry since 1700 is fake
Stellar arguments here in the 4th grade playground

>>76376821
>Still trying to meme this phrase into active use.

>>76376771
They've done protein over feeding studies and the result did show some fat gain. So what you're saying is just objectively false.

>>76377308
show me

CICO works, and the guy in the OP has no idea what he's talking about but is great at spewing hot garbage.

Next thing you're gonna tell me is that Progressive Overload is also bullshit

>>76378536
it's well known that excess protein your body doesn't use gets turned into glucose. are you retarded or just wanna be spoonfed? I'll give you the study if you post on vocaroo "im a big baby I WANNA BE SPOON FED HUHHHHHHH" (and do the HUUUHHHHH like the defias pillager aggro sound from World of Warcraft, the online roleplaying sensation)

>>76379212
>it's well known that excess protein your body doesn't use gets turned into glucose
Yeah, some, but there's a ceiling, unlike carbs and fat. Faggot.

>>76379212
the body will only convert what it needs of protein to glucose and not a drop more ever

>>76380047
This is proven incorrect by people getting kicked out of ketosis from overeating protein

>>76373632
the fact that you can't possible get more energy out than you put in is why cico is supreme. Sure, you can digest meat less efficiently than carbs. BUT if you don't consume more than you burn, you can not possibly gain weight. Fat fucks hate this

>>76373674
anyone that denies cico is a retard. How does it feel, being too stupid to realise you're stupid? Pretty good I'd imagine

>>76373854
you gonna listen to this vaxx retard? Enjoy.

>>76375623
It's not about losing weight though. It's fat. Specifically FAT

>>76380103
>Sure, you can digest meat less efficiently than carbs.
Dude what

>>76374036

least retarded atheist

>>76373656
You're a cant, m8

>>76380159
No. CICO has always been about losing weight. It just so happens that most fat people, following a caloric deficit, will lose fat since they have a huge excess of it.

>>76380470
You don't understand. Nobody sets out to lose "le weight" Everyone sets out to lose fat. Specifically. Even if they don't have the intelligence to articulate it.

>>76380477
No, YOU don't understand. CICO is objectively about losing weight. And in MOST cases when people want to lose fat (they say "weight"), they also don't care that much about preserving lean muscle mass, so for them, losing weight and losing fat is virtually the same thing. As long as they lose WEIGHT, they don't care.
Especially for FAT people, being in a caloric deficit will obliterate their FAT reserves, even though they're just focusing on losing WEIGHT.

>>76380492
You are being obtuse on purpose. Pray tell what that purpose is? People want to lose fat. End of story.

>>76380506
You deny obvious reality. Calories in, calories out will always work. End of story.

>>76380507
Of course it works, because when it doesn't you adjust so it does. Ergo it always works.
It doesn't matter though, since people set out to lose fat, not weight.

>>76380515
You can eat as healthily as you please, if you're not in a caloric deficit, you'll hardly lose anything. Your body has no reason to, regardless of what people set out to do.

>>76373649
Are you retarded?

>>76380525
Yes, of course. Which is why you find out after the fact whether you were in a "caloric deficit" or not.

>>76374010
>No one is saying calories mean nothing but to say calories are the sole aspect of nutrition is silly.
Ah I see you're one of those retards who completely misunderstood the point of the twinkies experiment.

>>76373618 (OP)
CICO may be an oversimplification, but following it will work.

>how many of you idiots know that the gas pedal in your car doesn't actually control the gas flow into the engine? When you step on that pedal it opens the throttle which, surprise, is actually responsible for controlling the amount of AIR your car gets. Depending on your engine type, if you have a carburetor or fuel injection or whatever, the amount of air flow combined with some other variables to complicated to explain here will result in an amount of gasoline being added to the mixture.
>gas pedal morons btfo?
>no, because if I want to go faster I step harder on that pedal. It doesn't matter how it works, so long as it does
That's how CICO denial sounds.

Who gives a shit how it works, so long as it does. And, guess what, it does. You can use the basic principle of CICO as the foundation for a solid diet and exercise plan for achieving your goal, and so long as you don't do something stupid like putting diesel in the gas tank, it'll work.

CICO is bullshit because the calorie was deprecated in 1948 by the introduction of the joule. Quantities of energy are therefore properly stated in joules, or (sub)multiples thereof.

>>76382330
>schizos dab on CICO
>facts dab on CICO
>common sense dabs on CICO
>even science itself dabs on CICO
It's so over for CICOcels it isn't even funny

>>76373618 (OP)
CICO is patently retarded because scales didn't exist for most of our non-obese hunter-gatherer history.

>>76382341
And calories do not exist to this day, it's all made up mumbo jumbo made to sell products and to poison gullible people.

>>76382341
>no one could measure that they were in a calorie deficit so they weren't in one
blind people cant see the sun so the sun doesnt exist
retard you realize food surplus was achieved in the industrial revolution?

>>76382353
Bingo. The very existence of CICO is a symptom of much bigger issues:: overpopulation, overproduction, wild industrialization and many, many more. Recognizing CICO for what it is (a faulty belief that treats humans like machines) is the first step to enlightenment.

>>76382368
retard im pro-CICO, im making fun of his stance that denies objectivism

>>76382372
>pro-CICO
You're not really doing a good job then bub

>>76373632
Holy fuck he's aged badly

>>76373618 (OP)
The laws of thermodynamics don't apply to me

>>76382436
>Bro is an extradimensional being.

>>76373618 (OP)
C+O2 = CO2 releases the same amount of energy no matter how you get there. You learned this in middle school.

>>76382676
This motherfucker is eating pure carbon

>>76382341
Holy based

>>76382330
CICO is out
JIJO is in

>>76382341
>Houses don't exist because we lived in caves and tents for most of our hunter-gatherer history.

How to control the CO part of cico?

>>76383811
Exercise

>>76373656
Australia is not on the bottom, it's just far over to the right

>>76375443
because cico is about weight gain/loss, not about specifically fat or muscle gain/loss
bodybuilders try to min/max their fat/muscle amount which is why they have specific diets

>>76383826
Is that it?

>>76383875
I mean you could take some supplements and manipulate your diet but yes mostly

>>76383905
I want to maximize the CO part. Exercise is obvious, but there's only so much you can do there.
I've tried DNP, but it's uncomfortable and frankly dangerous.

>>76383910
Ok

>>76373618 (OP)
t.

>>76373618 (OP)
>proteins are molecules
uhhhh

>>76373618 (OP)
Of course anyone who know biochemistry of human body knows CICO is just a brief observation.
This is why Keto diets work when you can have sulprus of calories in fat and protein but you will shit out of them mostly.
But do it otherway around and keep CI lower than your daily CO and you will lose weight. And there is nothing you could do about it.

>>76384146
That's not even remotely how ketogenic diets work.

>>76384146

Genuine question for people who admonish CICO as ineffective. What do you have to say regarding all successful bodybuilders meticulously tracking calories?

>something everyone did from the dawn of time is bullshit
>because some twitter blue tick played some word games
Cool story faggot

>>76384175
They’ll just say it was the drugs. These fat retards will never take accountability

>>76373618 (OP)
I don't take any sort of advice or lectures from people who look worse than me. Want people to listen? Put some work in, be worth listening to.

Oh look, another one of these dumb fucking threads.
You're all retarded and gay. Eat what and how you want, no one gives a shit. If eating what and how you want doesn't help you get the results you want, don't be a dogmatic idiot—try something different.
Bunch of whiny faggots reeeing into the abyss.

>>76385176
>I don't take any sort of advice or lectures from people who look worse than me.
Most of the people who look great didn't have to try very hard. Because most people don't try very hard at anything.

If they looked like shit and THEN looked great, do listen.

I'm currently fatter than I want to be but I have dieted and gotten super light, so I know how to do it.

>>76384175
Who in this thread is saying CICO is "ineffective"? Both sides of this debate just talk past each other when most people actually agree. Probably 80% of faggots who always debate this would agree that
>CICO is "true" (whatever that means) as a general principle
>What exactly you're eating matters and your body will respond differently based diet composition
>Body will also respond differently based on meal timing (no one would argue that eating 14K calories on Sunday and then fasting until next Sunday would have an identical effect as eating 2000 calories every day spaced across 3 meals)
So long as you phrased these three points properly to align with their specific brand of pseudo-intellectual term-chopping autism. You fags are all so exhausting.

>>76385538
>currently fatter than I want to be
Sorry, I'm principled so I won't listen to you yet.
Rooting for you though bro, give it everything

>>76373649
Because I'm not a genetic dead-end who has to justify everything on muh hormones and muh syndromes and muh xyz

>>76373632
Male prime starts at 35 according to TRP.
And here's your evidence ahahahahahahahaha TRP idiots BTFO like always.

>>76373618 (OP)
In a closed-loop feedback system like counting calories, as long as you're consistent in how you count calories, you'll get results.

>>76385642
there are people who refuse to count calories because they say it doesn't work. these are some of the loudest voices in the antiCICO movements

>>76385939
>Sorry, I'm principled so I won't listen to you yet.
you WILL listen to me. When I cut recently my lifts went to shit, so I'm trying to strike a balance between lift mogging and thin mogging.

>>76375445
Is that corn, hot dogs, shoestring potatoes and ketchup on a pizza?

>>76373618 (OP)
>calories in calories out is bullshit, but yes we have observed and are not arguing with more calories = gain weight and less calories = lose weight
>goes off on some random tangent about how calories is actually bullshit while explaining how calories work right after
huh?

>>76373713
you can't affect electron loss, you CAN affect oxidation

>>76373618 (OP)
I too believe anything posted on social media accounts with blue tag as absolute truth.
>starting list from 0

>>76380229
Pretty sure he's talking about how meat takes more calories to digest, I believe in some cases it can use up to 28% of the calories of a piece of meat to digest it. Also, some research suggests that calorie amounts may be wrong due to how the food is prepared. So for processed foods, the base ingredient (wheat, barley, etc) may have a set calorie amount, but if you turn it into flour and then into a cereal or snack, it's easier for the body to digest and uses less energy to process your food, so it's possible you may be getting more calories out of your processed snacks than you think.

This might explain why people who claim to be calorie counting can get it so wrong -- the labels just aren't that trustworthy. Even cooking food can alter the calorie count upwards (supposedly with meat too, although i'd imagine the fat loss on red meatwould counteract that so long as you are't using butter or other additions). So CICO is true, but our measurements of it are likely off quite a bit due to how we process and change things.

*There are also claims that mouth and gut microbiomes can have some effects on calories. This would make sense as they play a big role in digestion, but I don't think anyone has really measured it before, and microbiomes are so different it would be hard to have a control.

>>76388732
I didn't read past the first sentence of your blogpost because that's the exact opposite of what efficiency is.