How old were you when you realised CICO was bullshit?

For me, it was when i started taking estrogen for skin gains to combat acne scars, and finasteride for my hair loss.

I tracked the exact same macros and guess what, my weight went up. Thats when i realised it was a lie

>>76419243 (OP)
Is this how you generate cinversation?

CICO (Calories In, Calories Out) isn’t fake — it's a fundamental principle of energy balance: if you consume more calories than you burn, you gain weight, and vice versa. However, it’s a simplification and doesn’t capture factors like hormones, metabolism, genetics, food quality, and lifestyle. In short: true in theory, but real life is more complex.

>>76419243 (OP)
Just eat less

>>76419243 (OP)
I would put my "Calories" into and out of her, if you understand what I mean by that.

>>76419243 (OP)
people constantly say "CICO is fake because I had different results with the same number of calories in!"

yes, obviously. that's why the second half is CALORIES OUT. tons of stuff impacts that number, not just exercise.

>>76419243 (OP)
CICO is for midwits.

Obviously, eating less is probably going to make you lose weight.
>>76419248
But they completely forget about hormones, organ health, skin health, lean mass, etc. Just to excuse eating goyslop and cereal for
>muh CICO!

>>76419288
Plus the part about Calories being a completely bullshit measurement of food, and how the labels arent even accurate.

>>76419294
The labels lie, the sugar content is WAY higher, they did studies.

>>76419288
So its CO.

>>76419272
Im already so hungry all the time

why did she do it bros
she used to be perfect

>>76419243 (OP)
who

CICO works the same way for me at 38 that it did at 28 and 18

You guys just dont know how to track calories properly, i'd be most of you dont even know that youre meant to use a kitchen scale to accurately weigh ingredients out before you make a meal, etc

>>76419324
women & ruining their natural beauty
name a more iconic duo

>>76419343
mal malloy
she fell for the feeder meme and looks awful now

>>76419288
So in other words, "CICO" is a gross oversimplification that only touches on the tiniest fucking aspect of weightloss? To the extent that brining it up is basically irrelevant & retarded?
>>76419303
It doesn't help there is tons of legal fuckery afoot and what they legally have to declare as sugar or as a contributor to calories has been blurred. >>76419346
>accurately weigh ingredients out before you make a meal
And then what? Whats your reference? Just using USDA food data central to guesstimate how many calories you got? Even that's not very accurate. You have to always assume a generous margin of error.

>>76419358
Whats wrong with a larger woman

>>76419380
These mega corporations employ the most intelligent people on earth to sell you products.

Scientists in laboratories, psychologists in boardrooms. They know sugar is one of the most addictive substances known to man, and inject it into every single food source they can

People who say CICO is bullshit, a myth, etc.
>Fatties
>Dyels
>Weak-willed sissies who lie (to themselves) when counting calories, don't enter everything and get pissed they didn't lose weight
People who swear by CICO
>Body builders
>General athletes & lifters at advanced levels
>Anyone who's counted calories honestly and gained or lost weight intentionally
Which group would you like to be a part of?

>>76419358
DAMN?! Thats what she used to look like?! What a stupid fucking cunt.

>>76419416
That's funny because I know several of the latter half who are the most adamant about how much it's bullshit. Especially BBs and athletes who care way more about macros than calories.

Cico niggas be like
>the only way to get people out of this stadium is to have fewer people enter than exit it
>”how do we do that?”
>it’s simple, you just let more people exit than enter
>”but what is the most efficient way to facilitate this process?”
>it doesn’t matter, all that matters is that less people come in than go out
>”surely there’s some sort of planning or logistical strategy we can use to facilitate the outflow of people while preventing congestion and long lines?”
>shut the fuck up, stop with your meme crowd management strategies, we just need to get more people out than are coming in. Everything else is secondary
>”but how do we do this?”
>dude the ONLY way to empty this stadium is for more people to leave than enter, do you not understand the basic rules of thermodynamics?

>>76419403
I like-a woman you can grab onto something

>>76419426
Macros cannot be counted without counting calories. They count calories. You don't. Which is why you misunderstand what they do. When they say they're tracking macros, they're utilizing CICO and then fine tuning what those calories are. They have a calorie budget. Maybe you should learn from them, and you might look like them some day.

>>76419428
that's exactly right. if you have total control over who enters and leaves the stadium, then as long as you let more people leave than enter then it eventually goes empty. that is the absolute, undisputable truth, and everything else is up to you

>>76419428
Imagine asking someone repeatedly how to eat less food. Do you lack that much willpower to where you cannot put the fork down and reduce portion sizes?
>Okay anon but HOW do I eat less, I'm very very hungry

>>76419428
>some sort of planning or logistical strategy we can use to facilitate the outflow
Exactly. CICOcultists refuse to admit that all those restrictive diets utilize different means to achieve CICO. Instead they pretend like they're just 'memes' and keep bitching about "just count your calories," if that works for you great, you're likely a fucking dyel twink that's never struggled with weight loss or gain. But most people need a more specific plan.

>>76419243 (OP)
Hard to say. It was before the ability to reason, but I'm glad I grew out of being a chubby little retard. I'm sure you're close behind, anon. Godspeed, you damaged cherub.

>>76419453
>He needs a plan to eat less
Lmfao it's as easy as having control over your own impulses. You think anorexics follow some stupid strategy? They just get hungry and refuse to eat. They'll even admit it's all about control for them. And if you cannot exercise that control over your own actions, the immutable fact of your fatness is that you have uncontrollable impulses making you little different from a literal animal.

>>76419445
>and everything else
The devil is in the details dipshit. CICO is the broadstroke & more defined restrictive diets enforce cico through more specified means. What don't you understand?

>>76419243 (OP)
It isn’t bullshit tho

>>76419243 (OP)
I realized CICO was bullshit when I got a traumatic brain injury and became a fucking drooling retarded monkey.

>>76419243 (OP)
She used to look so fucking good

>>76419439
You're a fucking retard. I can get all my days macros and be way over or under a caloric target depending on how I distribute it. CICO isn't just secondary, it's irrelevant.

>>76419461
Guarantee you're a fat fuck who won't post body.

>>76419475
And this is why you'll never be cut like a bodybuilder.

>>76419479
Says a fat fuck.

>>76419478
seethe, cope, dilate, etc.
let's see any of you cico denialists post body.
oh, right. you never do.

>>76419484
LOL

>>76419243 (OP)
Post body.

lots of fatties in this thread who can't put down the fork

>>76419428
GEM

My T3 has tanked from prolonged restriction, leading to slowed respiratory rate, bradycardia etc. I have to walk for 45 minutes just to burn what I'd normally burn while sedentary because I'm in starvation mode.

You can theoretically nudge it up with iodine, selenium, zinc, iron, but I'm trying to fool an endocrinologist into giving me exogenous T3.

>>76419484
Fatties got real quiet after this dropped. Where you piggies at?

>>76419461
I knew an anorexic girl who didn't eat because she just didn't like eating. She wasn't hungry or anything, she just didn't feel like eating at all, like she didn't need it and had to force herself all the time. She was taking some injections to give her appetite or some shit like that and that fixed the issue.
anorexia is a pretty extreme example because it's beyond simple impulse control. the stereotypical case is girls not wanting to get fat, but imagine not feeling any apetite at all and having to force feed every meal. My gf's sister is also extremely skinny because she's celiac and has a bunch of intestinal problems, so eating without dying is a pretty big deal to her. for some people not starving to death is a challenge and they need the self control to actually eat

>>76419484
Not ripped but not fat. I deny it and think I look better than you lol

>>76419543
Wtf. That's enough internet for one day. If you're getting nightmares from this, I'm cursing you.

Is this a Twinkstalker staple b8?

>>76419475
>>76419462
>>76419453
>>76419428
>>76419289
CICO is for brainless retards to act like they're smart because they say "EATING LESS = LOSING WEIGHT TROLOLOLOL"

It is crazy how many autists seethe, rage, dilate and spergout the moment you tell them their lord and savior CICO is bullshit.

>>76419428

If you just want to speed up your metabolism then the answer is cocaine or any other number of stimulants out there, you fucking retard.

>>76419428
This is literally an own on the anti cico retards
>I need an advanced logistic plan to go to the fucking exit
Fucking retard.

>>76419552
Post body.

>>76419243 (OP)
it's part of the solution but not the whole solution. if you eat a 100% junk food diet but keep a caloric deficit, you'll still lose weight on the scale. no one is exempt from thermodynamics, claiming anything else is a fat cope for piggies that can't stand a little hunger

>76419613
>>give me scientific evidence it doesn’t work
>n-no not like that! Stop countering me!
Cicocels still seething lole

>>76419613
>>76419553
Cicultist seething so hard she forgot to change the insults on her samefag kek

>>76419639
Ok retard

>she doesn’t know you can uncheck yous on 4chanx
Nice try cordie. All the calorie counting is wrecking ur brain lole

>>76419428
To this day.. I’ve never seen a proper rebuttal, and I say this as a cico advocate

Sooo CICO works if you dont have shit genetics and dont take tranny drugs got it

yes cico works if you aren't a fat fuck and stop eating when you're full

>>76419248
> CI stayed the same
> CO changed
> wtf am I getting fat???

>>76419785
I exercise more than ever!

>>76419484
damn you fucking got his bitch ass

CICO cultists are weird
How come they don't understand the simplicity of calorie deficits and add all that other bullshit on top then act all surprised when their CICO doesn't work?

Hey lardasses in this thread, ignore CICO, don't eat more than 1750 calories a day while avoiding all "diet" drinks.

>>76419243 (OP)
I still haven't realized this because it's been working for me all my life. Works on my machine.

>>76419243 (OP)
CICO in the long term is actually true.

Are you fucking retards actually disputing that? You probably can't track your food properly and use the same cope as fat fucks that say they went on a diet but still didn't lose weight.

>muh "CICO is an oversemplification"
you don't need to simulate every atom in your body to lose weight you dumb fatty, just put down the cookie and go for a walk you can do that without a PhD in nutrition

>>76419243 (OP)
I was trying to bulk on legit 4000+ cals a day and didnt gain a pound for almost 2mo, cico is a jewish lie.

>>76419552
How is it bullshit?

>>76419652
He acknowledges the principle of CICO so why would it need to be rebutted
He just made up a strawmen argument in his mind where one party ask sensible question and the other party is irrational

>>76420107
Bioactive foods. Foods have chemicals that modulate your metabolism, fat, muscle and bone masses.

>>76420120
Sounds like cope for fatties

This entire thread is just full of retards or people baiting I guess

>CICO works ....BUT it could be improved
>So you admit that CICO works right?
>No it's bullshit
>????

>>76420123
Nah, you can literally look up what chromium does and learn they all have chromium skill issues.

>>76419243 (OP)
CICO isn't entirely bullshit, in the sense that you do need to pay attention to how much food you eat, otherwise you will gain weight. However, there's much more to the story, and the idea that "a calorie is a calorie" is dogshit, because we know that the body will handle energy from food sources differently depending on what it's given. The general advice of
>eat less and move more
is good, but the problem is that people need individualized instruction, because everyone is a goddamn special snowflake, and there's 1000 ways to skin a cat. The science is still up in the air over the conversation between the CICO model vs alternatives like the hormone model, but in general it doesn't take a genius to know that 100g of chocolate isn't the same as 100g of chicken breast, in terms of nutrient density, volume, satiety, and metabolic response.

So, at the very least, we can say definitively that "a calorie ISN'T just a calorie" and food quality matters, but in general, because calories are how we measure food energy, they're still relevant to weight management.

>>76420126
How does this changes the fact that eating less than your maintenance makes you lose fat?

>>76420130
All randomized controlled studies in humans have shown time and time and again that no diet is superior or inferior to another, for weightloss, as long as calories are equated
So no, a calorie is a calorie

>>76420133
Because calories and fat don't really couple so neatly; insulin resistance prevents efficient fat loss in the fatties given their chromium skill issues.

>>76420150
Diabetic people lose fat on keto and on high carb low fat
They lose fat on all kinds of diets as long as calories are reduced

>>76420137
That's true, but you're missing the forest for the trees. It's possible to lose weight on a twinkie only diet, but there's a few problems with that, such as

1. Low volume. Two cakes (77g) is 280 calories, and if you're cutting on a 1500 calorie diet, then you're only allowed to have 5.36 servings per day if you want to maintain your deficit. That's about 8 or 9 cakes (346g), which is going to be very unsatisfactory in terms of its ability to satisfy your hunger.
2. Nutritional deficiency. Those 9 twinkies will contain a whopping 279g of sugar, only 81g of fat, 16g of protein, zero fiber, and will be virtually devoid of nutrients. This means that not only will you be hungry shortly after consuming your allotment, you're going to feel like shit on top of it, because you will not have gotten any nutrients out of the endeavor.
3. Low adherence. Because of the two above factors, you're going to be hungry and feeling like shit, so your ability to stick with this particular diet is going to be very low. It's not sustainable, and therefore you're going to quit. It might not be today or tomorrow, but we can place bets, and I think you won't last two weeks. If you make that goal, then you won't last 3 months, etc. etc. In order for CICO to be effective, you need to do it consistently, and your faggy twinkie diet isn't going to facilitate that.

So, no, a "calorie isn't just a calorie" because food is more than a unit of measurement. We eat to nourish ourselves, and there's more at play than some arbitrary number associated with any given food's energy density.

>>76420150
>efficient fat loss
More cope to justify your inability to put down the fork

>>76420170
Twinkie only diet is just a stupid example
But there is nothing wrong eating twinkies as snack if it fits into your calorie goal

You get something enjoyable that could make it more likely for you to adhere to your diet compared to being on a strict program of only nutritious food
It really depends on the person
All diets, ALL DIETS have extremely high failure rates in the 90%tages

>>76420177
>enjoyable
Twinkies are not enjoyable. You can replace them with alternatives that are not only healthier but more pleasing to the palate.
>all diets have high failure rates
Yeah, but there are reasons for that, including low adherence and nutrient deficiency. Other reasons include psychological factors, environment, a mismatch between reality and expectations on the part of the dieter, etc. That doesn't mean that all diets are bound to fail anymore than it means that autistic calorie counting is the only important factor in determining one's success at weight loss.

>>76419552
I know you need meme diet to fix your social issues for you but that is not what CICO is about. It's simply a tool to cut or bulk.

>>76419243 (OP)
oh it is the same retarded thread again.

CICO is not bullshit. It is like Newtonian mechanics to quantum mechanics. It works for 99% of typical and general applications and fails in some specific cases that need more deep analysis.

>>76419288
>yes, obviously. that's why the second half is CALORIES OUT.
And it just so happens the CO part of CICO is nearly impossible to calculate accurately, making therefore the whole concept outdated.

>>76419269
>if you consume more calories than you burn, you gain weight, and vice versa
How do you know how many calories you burn?

>>76419288
>that's why the second half is CALORIES OUT
How do you measure it?

>>76420211
By counting calories in and measuring your bodyweight and circumferences regularly and taking pictures once a month

>>76420211
Easily, to count calories out you take your resting calories needs which are calculated for general population and weight with some error margin which is your base calories out.
And on top of it you can count how many calories you need to do workout by just calculating energy(calories are literally energy measurement like joules) you need to lift X kg by Y distance in T time. And you add the two and you have how many energy you need for this day to do breathe and to do stuff. And you can add 10-20% margin error.

Usually keeping below resting calories need will give you an effect of weight loss. Unless you have some illness that fucks up how your organism reacts to normal diet. Or you are on some weird diet consisting only of oil or only of proteins, then you have to take that into account. But if you eat normally 3-5 meals a day that consist of balanced ~1/3 protein/carbs/fats (or whatever the consensus is) then CICO is all you need.

>>76419484
How many years of lifting?

today years old!

>>76419289
>Obviously, eating less is probably going to make you lose weight.
Less of what though. That is the question. "Less of everything then" may work for some, for a while and turns into anorexia pretty quickly. The whole thing, the actual science about calories, is completely bonkers, just check out the measurements in actual metabolic chambers, where skinnyfat untrained people burn 4,000 kcal per day and more just by lying around. Yet they don't lsoe weight by eating a normal diet.

All this was common knowledge even 5 years ago, btw.

>>76419408
>These mega corporations employ the most intelligent people on earth to sell you products.
>Scientists in laboratories, psychologists in boardrooms. They know sugar is one of the most addictive substances known to man, and inject it into every single food source they can
So you#re just schizo, got it.

Hint: Those scientists cannot measure how many calories the steak on your palte has, they cannot measure how much of it you digest, how much you shit out and how your body deals with it. What they do is burn the steak in an oven to check out theoretically how much heat energy can be gotten out fo that steak at a perfect maximum (burning it to ash), then guess the rest. If they get more money, they also feed part of the steak to some lab mice and weigh their poop and their body weight to check out how mice digest the steak. Then guess the rest.

Aside form the fact that CICO sees your stomach and guts as a LITERAL fucking fire oven like some kind of stone age medicine man, the whole thing is basically 99% guesswork and make believe. That's why it doesn't work. That's why fitness people don't "count calories", they just eat less until you lose weight and ignore the CO portion, just going by their BMR. Look it up, they all do this. No one goes "I burned 500 calories here, another SNickers for me to maintain my weight". Because they all know it doesn't work.

And ofc, athletes cutting weight don't count calories either, they stop eating and drinking completely to cut water instead, that is a lot easier than trying to cut fat.

>>76420224
So the CO is measured by weight loss/gain?

>>76420230
>If you eat the same thing everyday then CICO is accurate
kek

>>76420249
>where skinnyfat untrained people burn 4,000 kcal per day
These must be some american dietetary tables.
Normal person in 30's who is in normal BMI and sits on his ass most of the day should be burning 2100-2300kcal a day by standard BMR european calculations.

>>76420273
are you clinically retarded or you just cannot comprehend written words?
Nowhere in the post you quoted there is anything about eating THE SAME THINGS every day. There isn't even anything about eating the same amount of macros or the same amount of calories every day.
You fucking imbecile.

>>76420278
>But if you eat normally 3-5 meals a day that consist of balanced ~1/3 protein/carbs/fats (or whatever the consensus is) then CICO is all you need.

>>76420286
And where does it say it is eating THE SAME THING every day? You autistic fucker?

>>76420274
>2100-2300kcal
For women, yes.

But since you are stilla CICO believer (poor you), have some of them apples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD6KEXokyHw

>Woman: Skinny, 163 m, 2500 kcal per day
>Man: 182 cm /6', skinny fat-ish as seen in pic, 4000 calories
From around 16:12 on for the results.
This is the norm in these chambers. There are also people who need much LESS calories, and they aren't even rare, like 10-15% of the population. Those get fat from morsels of food.

So in the end, it is all complete and utter bullshit. If you don't beleve this, that's ok, you're wrong.

>>76420291
CI*CO works. Literally just count calories bro

*if you eat normally 3-5 meals a day that consist of balanced ~1/3 protein/carbs/fats (or whatever the consensus is)

>>76419324
>>76419358
she was the hottest at around 180, now at 225+ she's just way too big

>>76420296
>Man: 182 cm /6', skinny fat-ish as seen in pic, 4000 calories

I calculated these 2200 for a man, 35 yo, sitting on his all all day who is 85kg and 180cm (6').
I do not know what retarded calculator you have that it differentiates betwen woman and man by 1500kcal on the same data. Difference between man and woman is max 200kcal.

So it is utter bullshit if you use some retarded calculators. 99% of people who just do CICO will loose weight unless they lie about how many calories they intake. And it is proven over and over again by these people who just do CICO correctly.

>>76420270
Yes, the excess calories you burned are taken from body fat

>>76420300
It literally works. You cannot gain weight when you have less intake to the output. And if you do, please call CERN because you've found a new renevable and unlimited energy source.

And this quote you quote does not mean eating the same thing every day you fucking sperg. You can eat carbs in form of potatoes, rice, bread, bananas or whatever. If you are too fucking retarded to understand simple sentence just do not join any discusion with your autism because you are too fucking stupid to understand normal casual speech and presupositions that comes from this speech. If you neet algorithm graphs to understand ismple things then you are not fit to have any conversatio about anything.

>>76420296
That jew phenotype holy shit. Bitch looks like dj qualls

>>76420303
Are you retarded?

>>76420300
It literally doesn't.

>>76420309
It literally doesn't.

The denial is delicious though.

>Just use CICO
>you will lose weight when you're in a calorie deficit
when do i know i'm in a calorie deficit?
>when you lose weight

CICO circular logic can never be wrong
The undefeated diet with 100% success rate because if you don't lose weight it's because you weren't in a calorie deficit

>>76420311
Face-blind autist.

>>76420305
How do you know how much fat was burned vs muscle and water loss?

>>76419243 (OP)
>shitposting on /fit/

>>76420313
Will you lose weight when you do not eat?
Yes.
Why?
Because you have less calorie intake than you need calories to function.
It is so easy.

I had biochemistry of human body in school. I know how the fuck body works, what is the difference in digesting fructose and glucose in human body and why fructose is less energetic (it needs initially ATP to be broken into simplier carbs), how they work in Krebs cycle etc.
And with all that knowledge I can assure you CICO works.

Unless you are lying retard who over eats and cries that he cannot loose weight because he cannot control his urges to eat slop constantly.

>>76420309
>to the output
how to you measure the output?

>>76420323
>Claims mainstream positions
>Eating less cuases you to lose weight
>But moving more doesn't, don't do that, wtf
So basically, you just parrot stuff from the internet and ignore everything and everyone that disagrees. Science, everyone.

>>76420323
>less calorie intake than you need calories to function
And how do you when you have reached that point?

>>76420249
So youre saying hes burning 4000 calories and not eating more than that so they lose weight? Weird how CICO works in your example while you say its bullshit in the same breath

>>76420327
It was already stated you illiterate retard.
>>76420263
and before you start sperging again. It is just rough calculation. Which is just enough for normal and sane people to follow. So definitely not for retards like you.

>>76420331
>But moving more doesn't, don't do that, wtf
Who ever wrote that you imbecile?
It was stated >>76420230 here that moving also needs energy that you need to calculate how much energy you need for movement.
If you are too stupid to read just do not write anything.

>>76420318
Body composition newfag.
If you continue to use muscles, a base level of muscle mass must be sustained to continue the activity.

There is a reason we measure weight loss over weeks and not days.

>>76420335
So CICO is true plus minus 20-30% margin of error
At what margin of error do we start calling CERN?

>>76420341
So you don't know is what you're saying

>>76420343
When you claim you did follow a diet and calculated CICO and were under calculated CO for months and you still gained mass(which is what all fat asses like you claim when doing dieting), then you call CERN. And maybe if you are lucky the guys with PhDs in physics will explain you that CICO works and you are just fucking faggot.

FREAKING CALL CERN YOU'VE MUST BELIEVE IN FREE ENERGY IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN CICO*


*but yeah cico has a 20-30% margin of error and 10 different things has to be factored in so it's really only accurate if you eat roughly the same things everyday in terms of macros and meal composition

>>76420318
Thats why I measure my hip and waist circumference, take pictures and track my weights lifted

>>76419428
Back to re-ddit retard. You literally just explained why CICO works.

>>76420345
>shitposting unironically on 4chan

CICO brainiacs hate talking about the CO part and only focus on CI. Curious.
Imagine that CICO as a concept doesn't exist. You eat too much, but you only know that after the fact when you get fat. You start losing weight when you eat too little, which you only find out you're eating too little - after you've lost weight. Ergo. You only know the CO part after the fact.
Oh sorry, your metabolic rate changed? Guess you'll have to completely recalculate your CI and CO and only know it after the fact (again).
Wow CICO guys are GENIUSES.

>>76420352
>PhDs in physics
What would a physicist tell me about that?

>>76420378
Well you just proved CICO is true.
And the problem lies in calculating proper CI and CO.
Which doesn't make it any less true.
It is like with gravity - it works. Noone know why and how exacly though. But it didn't stop humans from building rockets and planes and using maths to calculate gravity forces.

>>76420378
>heh i don't understand how averages work
>i literally just sit around all day doing NOOOO activity
>i'm so smart

PEAK JEET HOURS ON /fit/
GOOD MORNINGS SAARS!

>>76420358
>I've calculated my BMR/CO as 2500kcal
>Ordered boxed meals that are calculated at ~1500kcal daily and ate almost only them for three months not worrying what macros and other stuff is inside, with couple of cheat days thrown here and there, but mostly keeping to the boxed stuff 90% of the time
>Lost weight
>RREEEEEE CICO IS BULLSHITT REEEEE

>>76420378
People who dont believe in CICO dont even have a name for their weight gain/loss concept
What do YOU do in order to lose weight? Do you eat MORE or LESS than you had previously?

>>76420387
>>76420388
>>76420398

I'd rather have a "rule of thumb" - which foods/hormones or combination thereof help with metabolism, rather than waste my time calculating and recalculating retarded metrics that are within 30% margin of error.
You fucking imbeciles!

>>76420400
>Saar I would rather transition Saar than do basic math twice a month
Daring today aren't we?

>>76420378
They don't believe they need to know the CO part

>>76420400
Well then how do you lose weight. Tell us, Einstein.

>>76419428
take my reddit gold kind stranger

>>76419503
so true!

>>76420407
I know the CO part by measuring my body weight and my waist line twice a week

I'm on the maple syrup diet. I drink one gallon of maple syrup a day. join me, frens. OGOMSAD. amazing gains.

>>76420411
I take DNP, DHT, T3, Test, Anadrol, Anavar

>>76420396
The boxed meals was just random food or was it a consistant diet?

>>76420415
keep grinding king and dabbing on these fucking normal fags.

>>76420415
What does that tell you about CO?

>>76420352
Don't bother with these faggots. They dont understand that an online calculator isn't accurate and that they would have to actually count their calories and weigh themselves daily to find their real TDEE.
CICO is inherently true and they're just mad the big bad calculator online isn't right in every case and is just an estimate.

>>76420421
how to tell us you are so poor you cannot order boxed diet without telling us you are poor.

I will be nice and tell you: boxed diet is different food every day for every meal. Some foods repeat but the whole daily combination is different for every day.

>>76420314
That's also a rat faced jew phenotype. Oy vey the projection.

>>76420430
so it wasn't just random food. It's a balanced diet every day?

>>76420429
CICO deniers be like
>Bro I ate 6k calories and I walked 1 mile before sitting down for 8 hours why am I not losing weight CICO is shit

I am always pessimistic with my measurements. I always overestimate my total calories ingest by about 50 and always overestimate my calories burned by about 100.

What I've learned from 36 years of physical activity is that cooking oils are always the reason for weight gain.
You can measure out sugar, carbs, meat, just about everything to literal amounts, but going slightly over on cooking oil measurements easily equals an extra 20 calories. and it's extremely easy to overdo cooking oils a single spoonful is 100-150 calories on average.

>>76420429
>find their real TDEE
How do you do that then?

>>76420451
>I am always pessimistic with my measurements. I always overestimate my total calories ingest by about 50 and always overestimate my calories burned by about 100.
So you're operating with a 150% margin of error?

>>76420452
Maybe try learning how to read first retard

>>76420459
You can calculate TDEE from weighing yourself?

>>76420456
At this point I have pretty much stopped counting calories altogether. i've been doing
this for multiple decades.

It's much simpler at this point in my life.
>trying to lose weight
>am I hungry before each meal? No? okay i'm eating too much
Been 190-205 lbs for better part of the last 8 years, 15% body fat in summer, 17% in winter.
Shirt size doesn't change, pant size doesn't change. Winter my stomach gets those little things on the sides and by summer they are gone.

However when I was counting calories I always assumed there were more calories in my food than what I thought I was ingesting and that I was not burning nearly as much when exercising.
It was not accurate, but it assured I lost weight at a much faster rate for my goals.

I mean who the fuck counts calories for bulking though?
Bulking is literal an increase to macros/micros until goal weight is achieved. What retard needs to know that two eggs extra a day == 140 calories. Just eat the fucking eggs.

Ever see a fat person in a concentration camp?

>>76420469
>CICO deniers be like
>It was not accurate

>>76420425
I must have output more calories than I have input because I lost fat and waist circumference while maintaining strength for the most part
Also my abs are becoming visible

>>76420334
>So youre saying hes burning 4000 calories and not eating more than that so they lose weight? Weird how CICO works in your example while you say its bullshit in the same breath
American reading comprehension (and syntax, what the fuck man). I'd refute you, but please work on your English first.

>>76420481
He didn't do CICO, he just ate less until he lost weight. That isn't CICO, that is an eating disorder. Basically, calculate your BMR, then TDEE, then your intake, then disregard all of that and just blindly try it out until it works. That is the only way CICO ever works - disregarding it completely.

>>76419243 (OP)
its not bullshit. CICO is broadly correct, but food content and quality matter.

>>76420485
That is called circular logic.

>>76420475
>Ever see a fat person in a concentration camp?
Yes, there are pics like that.

>>76420502
>its not bullshit. CICO is broadly correct, but food content and quality matter.
Content and quality have no bearing on caloric value, so you are disagreeing with yourself.

>just eat less fatty
>DOOOOD, CICO IS BS , WHADDABOUT [menial thing]

scolastics

>>76420170
>BTFO your argument by simply existing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Barbieri's_fast

>>76420500
>He didn't do CICO, he just ate less until he lost weight.
He didn't do CICO he just had less CALORIES IN than he needed CALORIES OUT until he lost weight.
At this point it is like arguing with flat earthers.

>>76420150
>efficient fat loss
Efficiency is a luxury of the skilled.

>>76420504
No there aren't

1. Buy renpho scale for the cheap price of $20
2. Stand on scale
3. Write down your BMR.
4. Track calorie intake
5. Eat under your BMR.
6. Continue tracking your weight.
7. ???
8. Enjoy your new body!
It's as easy as that. But you won't do it. Because you can't. Not because of a deficiency in CICO, no; the deficiency is in your brain. You lack impulse control. You lack discipline. You lack accountability. Stay fat forever. Just know that it really is your fault.

>>76420507
>Content and quality have no bearing on caloric value,
fats are rated 9kcal for 1g
proteins and carbs are rated 4kcal per 1g.
Yeah you are wrong again.

>>76420204
If you lose weight you have burned more calories than you ate.

Cardio

Exercise Calories Burned (30 min)

Running (6 mph) 360
Jump rope (fast) 400–450
Rowing (moderate) 260
Biking (12–14 mph) 300
Swimming (laps) 250–300
Elliptical (moderate) 270
Hiking 220–250
Walking (3.5 mph) 140–160
---

Strength / Weights

Activity Calories Burned (30 min)

Weightlifting (light) 90–130
Weightlifting (heavy) 180–220
CrossFit / HIIT 250–400+
Bodyweight circuit 200–300
---

Sports / Misc

Sport Calories Burned (30 min)

Basketball 300
Soccer 320
Boxing (sparring) 350–400
Tennis 250–300
Martial Arts 300–360
---

Low Impact

Activity Calories Burned (30 min)

Yoga (Hatha) 100
Pilates 120–150
Stretching 80–100
---

Note: These are estimates and vary by:

Intensity

Duration

Individual metabolism

Body weight


Want a custom estimate based on your stats and routine? I can run the numbers.

>>76420583
>These are estimates
What margin of error are we working with here?

>>76420593
Great question — the margin of error for calorie burn estimates in exercise is typically 10–30%, and sometimes even higher. Here's why:


---

Sources of error:

Factor Impact

Body weight & composition Muscle burns more than fat; heavier people burn more
Exercise intensity “Moderate” for one person may be “light” for another
Efficiency/form Skilled runners/bikers use less energy than beginners
Genetics & metabolism Resting metabolic rate varies widely
Measurement tool Wearables (Fitbits, smartwatches) can be off by 20–50%
Environmental factors Heat, wind, terrain all affect energy output
---

General Rule of Thumb:

Low-tech estimates (charts, calculators): ±20–30%

Wearables (Fitbit, Apple Watch, etc.): ±20–40%

Lab-grade testing (VO2 max test): ±5–10% (gold standard)
---

Practical takeaway:

Treat these numbers as ballpark figures, not exact science. For fat loss or performance, consistency in tracking is more important than precision.

Let me know if you want tips on more accurate tracking for your workouts or calories burned.

Does chewing your food effect CICO?

>>76420606
>Treat these numbers as ballpark figures
So it's CIBallparkCO

>>76420621
CICO fags would rather do retarded 50% margin of error calculations and obsess about them - rather than be interested in actual systems. Fucking grim

>>76420621
If you really wanted to lose weight you would track calories and weigh yourself every day. If you didnt weigh less by the end of the week just drop calories by 500.

>>76420624
While they'll also say
>CICO is literally thermodynamics bro

>>76420633
so basically this
>>76420313

>>76420636
And also they'll invade every single fucking space that actually delves deeper into diet with any nuance.
Insufferable faggotry.

>>76419243 (OP)
I think anti-CICO fags are just a little slow in the head, and they took a while longer than the rest of us to figure out their diet.

>>76420651
>NUANCE IS PART OF CO

>>76420624
>CICO works with high margin error
>Use CICO because it is easy to use even with high margin error
>Lose fat
>well it works with low effort so no need to investigate further
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HOW CAN YOU LOSE FAT ON CICIO IF YOU DO NOT HAVE PHD IN MEDICINE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>76420669
>well it works with low effort so no need to investigate further
And if it doesn't work we'll just call the person a fat lazy piece of shit

>>76420680
Yeah, because you are not only fat lazy piece of shit, but usually a liar who cannot count what they eat.
It is the case with every single fat motherfucker who cannot lose weight on CICO. And it was proven time and time again that these fat fuckers who do not lose weight on CICO are liars and eat up over CO. Even in "The Power of Habit" a book about habits there is a chapter about fat fucks and eating, where the guys who were doing good CICO count losed weight, and the fucks who were lying and eating between meals and not making notes were not losing weight.
every signle time you fat fuck. You are fat because you are fucking lazy and liar. You waste more time argueing how diets do not work for you instead of keeping them up. And I have a couple of fat fuckers like you around in my family.
And we have had enough of listening to your bullshit excuses. You are just lazy pieces of shit without any backbone and any willpower.

>>76419248
What form of estrogen? Mtf hrt?

>>76420624
You are the only one sounding obsessed. The not mentally ill simply eat more to bulk and eat less to cut

>>76420699
NTA, so how do you think you lose weight? what is the process that makes you burn fat, if not using up more energy than what you eat?

>>76420699
>Even in "The Power of Habit" a book about habits there is a chapter about fat fucks and eating, where the guys who were doing good CICO count losed weight, and the fucks who were lying and eating between meals and not making notes were not losing weight.
Well i guess that proves it
No need to investigate any further

>>76420731
every single research shows CICO works. Even research that is not about CICO shows that it actually works.
>NOPE IT DOES NOT WORK!!!!!
Like talking with a fucking braindead flatearther

>>76420725
it shouldn't be addressed to me. I know how human processes food and how energy is made from it on a molecular level. And what ATP and Krebs cycle is.

>>76419243 (OP)
>make retarded claim disputing something widely agreed on while presenting 0 arguments as to why its false
>add some generic slut for coomer magnet
>200 posts
its so easy to create bait threads

>>76420747
This is why free speech and free internet is a mistake. These people should be banned from all social media and be publicly shamed for being stupid and fat. Unfortunately they are the ones who post the most.

>>76420747
Do you think it's human nature or this website? If i ask chat gpt to craft a thread to optimize replies, it makes me a bait thread based on the topic. The catalogue is clearly being manipulated by a few dyels who figured out the formula for getting (yous)

>>76420740
>every single research shows CICO works
name them

>>76419243 (OP)
I started doing carnivore about 8 years ago, I was already quite lean and muscular but I began eating more calories, as much as 500-1000 more per day and my body composition improved, as in I just seemed to have a better "set point" baseline. My body was happy being at a lower bodyfat and holding more muscle at that bodyfat. That's when I realised that CICO is simplistic nonsense and it's really all about hormones. I think the science has started to catch up a lot since then and the CICO stuff (which is really just magazine broscience) is falling away.

>>76420758
Here are key peer‑reviewed studies and trials showing that “Calories In, Calories Out” (CICO)—i.e. sustained calorie deficit—works to produce weight loss:


---

Key Clinical Trials & RCTs

Hall & Guo (2017): This review frames obesity within the laws of thermodynamics, confirming that total calorie intake—not macros—is the primary driver of weight gain or loss .

Ebbeling etal. (BMJ, 2018): In a controlled feeding study, participants with matched calorie intakes lost similar weight regardless of diet composition—demonstrating energy balance overrides macronutrient ratios .

CALERIE Phase I & II (2011–2019): Healthy adults placed on a 25% calorie restriction for up to two years had significant reductions in weight, insulin resistance, LDL cholesterol, body temperature, and DNA oxidative damage—even though they weren’t obese .
---

Energy Feedback & Intake Tracking

Indirect Calorimetry Intervention (2024): Participants who received calorie and energy-expenditure feedback lost ~2.3kg more over 24weeks than controls—confirming that visualizing actual intake and burn helps maintain a deficit .
---

Energy Density & Web-Based Diet Programs

Interventions on Energy Density (2007–2021): Reducing energy density of food (i.e. lowerkcal/g items) without increasing portion size led to reduced total intake and reliable weight loss across trials like PREMIER and others .

Web-based interactive programs focusing on energy density and intake tracking showed ~4kg weight loss at 12months, significantly more than control programs

>>76420769
Meta‑Analyses & Systematic Reviews

Intermittent Energy Restriction Meta‑Analysis (9 studies): After >6 months, intermittent calorie restriction patterns yielded almost identical weight loss compared to continuous restriction—highlighting that consistent calories in/out drives results more than the eating schedule .
---

Summary Table

Study or Review Method Result Highlights

Hall & Guo, 2017 Review Calories, not macros, control fat gain/loss
Ebbeling etal., 2018 RCT Equal intake equal weight loss regardless of diet type
CALERIE trials Long‑term controlled CR Sustained calorie restriction leads to body weight & metabolic improvements
Caloric feedback intervention, 2024 RCT Feedback on actual calorie burn/intake improved weight loss
Energy density trials & programs Behavioral RCTs Lower energy density reduced intake & sustained weight loss
Intermittent vs continuous restriction meta Systematic review Both effective when calories are controlled
---

What about critiques?

Some alternative narratives argue metabolism or hormone-driven factors invalidate CICO. However:

The carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis has repeatedly failed to show that carb-reduction alone drives greater weight loss when calories are matched .

Anecdotal or Reddit-based posts claim insulin or gut factors override CICO—but they often cite uncontrolled studies or misinterpret data (e.g. weight loss differences despite varying actual intake)

>>76420740
This is just demonstrably wrong though. If CICO "just works" then its believers wouldn't have to constantly attach the caveats of
>except for noob gains
and
>except for when you take drugs that alter hormones
in other words, it works in conditions where hormones are controlled, and it doesn't work in conditions when hormones are altered. Which is what people now understand to be the case. CICO is a very limited understanding of metabolism that assumes that a lot of variables are held constant, and its adherents also believe that energy from food is either used or stored as fat. They don't understand that it's commonly excreted such that trying to infer anything from "calories in calories out" is a waste of time because you don't actually know how much energy you're ingesting or excreting.

>>76420780
>works in conditions where hormones are controlled, and it doesn't work in conditions when hormones are altered

Do you actually believe if you eat little enough you wont lose weight? What do you think would happen if you ate nothing?

>>76420769
non of those studies prove CICO

>>76420784
Hey cicotard
Can you guess what can effect your hormones ?

>>76420797
What would happen if you ate nothing and why?

>>76420801
your body would burn fat, muscle and eventually your organs to have energy to survive.
The body would also adjust down it's energy expenditure because it's not a furnace

>>76420807
Why would it do that? Because your body isnt getting enough energy from food?

>>76420784
My post went way over your head. No one is saying that energy balance doesn't matter, just that it only matters in the larger framework of hormones, and CICO believers even admit this themselves with their caveats.

You can eat "little enough" and not lose if the hormone state is such that the body is preserving bodyfat while catabolising other tissues, Such an example would be reducing calories for weight loss and inducing hypothyroidism thus shifting the body's preference for stored energy from adipose to "luxury tissues" like excess muscle. And you can consume an energy surplus and lose fat as we commonly see with various steroids as well as DNP. All of these effects are either directly or indirectly related to hormonal changes. Energy balance still matters in all of these contexts but you cannot make an assessment of body composition changes based on energy balance alone without understanding the wider hormonal picture. Do you understand?

>>76420814
>getting enough energy from food
how do you measure that?

>>76420816
Yes, I understand your post — it's making a nuanced, but ultimately misleading argument that attempts to sidestep CICO by reframing energy balance as subordinate to hormones. Here's a point-by-point debunking grounded in physiology and thermodynamics:


---

1. “Hormones can override energy balance”

False framing. Hormones influence how energy is partitioned (fat vs muscle), but they cannot violate energy conservation.

Example: Hypothyroidism lowers TDEE, but you will still lose fat if intake drops below your new, lower expenditure — albeit slowly and with more lean tissue loss.

Example: Anabolic steroids increase lean mass and lipolysis, but this is still within the framework of CICO — they raise energy expenditure and shift nutrient partitioning, not bypass calorie balance.


> Hormones modulate the “calories out” side, they do not override it.
---

2. “You can be in a deficit and not lose fat”

Misleading half-truth.

In extreme stress or hormonal dysfunction (e.g., Cushing’s, starvation), the body may prefer to burn lean tissue, but overall mass still declines. You're still in a deficit.

You may lose muscle > fat, but that’s not a refutation of CICO — it’s a case of bad partitioning due to the hormonal environment.


CICO governs weight change.
Hormones govern how that weight changes (fat vs muscle).


---

3. “You can eat more and lose fat on steroids or DNP”

>>76420823
True — but CICO still applies.

Steroids increase muscle mass and raise BMR — so “calories out” goes up. You're still burning more than you eat.

DNP is literally a mitochondrial uncoupler — it forces cells to waste energy as heat, massively increasing expenditure.


> This proves CICO, not disproves it. These are tools to manipulate “calories out.”
---

4. “You can’t assess body comp changes based on CICO alone”

True, but irrelevant.

CICO predicts energy balance, not body composition directly. You’re arguing a strawman:

CICO doesn't claim to predict fat vs muscle breakdown.

It predicts whether mass is gained, lost, or maintained, which holds regardless of hormonal environment.


If you gained lean mass but lost fat, you're still in a net deficit, even if the scale doesn't show much change.
If you're gaining fat, you're in a surplus — even if you're taking steroids or fasting.


---

Final Summary:

> Hormones control “how” the body spends energy, but not whether the body follows energy conservation.

You can’t eat at maintenance and magically create mass — not even with steroids. And you can’t eat in a real deficit and gain fat. Every example you gave — hypothyroidism, DNP, steroids — operates by altering “calories out” or partitioning, not by refuting CICO.

>>76420823
>Hypothyroidism lowers TDEE, but you will still lose fat if intake drops below your new, lower expenditure
and guess what has an effect on that?
Take a crazy wild guess

>>76420823
>>76420825
I just realized AIs are perfect to counter retards. For the first time you have something allowing you to make posts with sources faster than they can concoct their bullshits

>>76420831
Ask your AI if diet effects T3 and T4

>>76420833
I don't care, I eat when I'm hungry and my weight stays the same. When I want to bulk I eat a little bit more, when I want to cut I eat a little bit less

>>76420831
Why do you think chuds hate ai

I just realized AIs are perfect to counter cico retards

Diet can absolutely affect T3 and T4 — and therefore affect how many calories you burn, how you feel, and how your body loses weight.

Diet Factor Thyroid Effect
Severe calorie restriction T3, metabolism
Low-carb/keto T3 (context-dependent)
Nutrient deficiencies Impaired T3/T4 production
Fasting T3 with long duration
Refeeding T3, metabolism

>>76420843
No — this does not invalidate CICO. In fact, it perfectly confirms it.

Let’s break it down clearly:


---

What You’re Describing

The list you posted shows how diet affects thyroid hormones (T3, T4), which in turn impact your metabolic rate (calories out).

> That means: Your “calories out” side of the CICO equation is adaptive.
This is expected in every serious model of energy balance.
---

Why It Doesn’t Invalidate CICO

Claim Reality

“Fasting or severe restriction lowers T3 and metabolism.” True — but that means CICO is still working: your output shrinks, so weight loss slows. You’re not “violating” energy balance — your body is defending it.
“Low-carb diets lower T3.” Sometimes — but again, this affects how many calories you burn, not whether you burn more than you eat.
“Nutrient deficiencies impair T3/T4.” Yes — which means you burn fewer calories, again shifting the ‘out’ part of the equation.


These are all changes to calories out.
They’re part of CICO, not a rebuttal to it.


---

Real Example: Starvation Mode

When someone is:

eating very little,

has low thyroid output,

and not losing weight...


It’s because their TDEE has dropped dramatically (sometimes by hundreds of calories/day). They're not violating CICO — they're not in a deficit anymore relative to their new, suppressed metabolic rate.


---

Big Picture:

> CICO is not just “eat less, lose weight.”
It's:
Change in body mass = calories in – calories out
…where “calories out” includes BMR, NEAT, TEF, and exercise — all of which can be influenced by thyroid, hormones, stress, diet, etc.
If your thyroid output drops, calories out drops. But the principle still holds.


---

Final Answer:

No, this doesn’t invalidate CICO.
It just shows that CICO is dynamic, not static — and the body can adapt. But the law of energy conservation still rules the system.

>>76420854
>It just shows that CICO is dynamic
Thanks for confirming that you can't calculate CO

>>76420296
Oh you mean calories out varies based on individual metabolism?

God you are a dumb nigger.

Just count calories and then calculate BMR, NEAT, TEF, and exercise — all of which can be influenced by thyroid, hormones, stress, diet, etc.
Cico is that simple

>>76420865

1. Cognitive Dissonance

> “If CICO is true, then I should be losing weight. But I’m not. Therefore, CICO must be wrong.”
When someone is struggling with fat loss, the idea that they're still overeating relative to their (possibly suppressed) output is painful.

Rather than accept the uncomfortable truth that they're in control of intake but misjudging it, they reject the model.


Implication:

Easier to blame “hormones,” “metabolism,” or “genetics” than to admit misreporting or underestimating intake (which is very common and unintentional).
---

2. Locus of Control

> CICO places responsibility on the individual, which can feel empowering — or crushing.
People with an external locus of control (feeling like life happens to them) may resist CICO because it implies they could change but haven’t.

Accepting CICO means accepting agency, and that can trigger shame, guilt, or anxiety — especially after repeated failure.
---

3. Desire for a “Smarter” Answer

> “It can’t be that simple.”
Some people crave complex or secret knowledge — it makes them feel smarter or more in control.

Hormones, insulin, thyroid, fasting windows — these sound sophisticated and offer narratives of exception.


Example:

Low-carb zealots, carnivore dieters, or “insulin model” fans often feel special for “knowing better” than the mainstream. It becomes part of their identity.
---

4. Shame Avoidance

For some, weight gain or inability to lose fat feels like a moral failure.

Rejecting CICO allows them to say: “It’s not my fault; it’s my hormones/metabolism/etc.”

>>76420886
Damn chatgpt is brutal

>oops my own AI answer disproved me
>I'll make it disagree with itself

>>76420876
The reps don't count if the spotter tugs the strap on

>>76419467
I thought getting smarter after head injury only happened in fiction.

>>76419428
You act as if there aren't ways to manage CICO effectively. One thing is to track food, most people know this. Most people won't try it or fuck it up. Another way is to manage hunger. Lean protein and fiber will keep you satiated. Don't try to strawman this. CICO isn't saying only calories matter, but at the end of the day. that's what will change your weight. Sorry you are fat but don't misrepresent the argument

>>76419243 (OP)
fat retards need to get on other copes already, nicotine, smoking, whatever.
at the end of the day fat people are fat because they resort to food for pleasure.

>>76419543
Wtf? This has gotta be edited. If not, then jeez pal

>>76420303
I think they're all obese and retarded.
I lost 20 pounds in a month just counting calories.
And i gained those 20 pounds by counting calories as well.
I was 110lbs went up to 185lbs. Now 165lbs.
Simple as that. Hard tho once you fat cus you fall in love with food. But the numbers don't lie.
CICO works. Cus it's real.

>>76420718
Yeah estrogen enanthate.

Its made my skin so soft, and i look v pretty now

>>76421092
you ate a different diet and macro composition every day?
because if you eat a regular diet every day then it doesn't prove CICO

>>76421073
>CICO isn't saying only calories matter
>but at the end of the day. that's what will change your weight
burning fat and storing fat is what effects weight
and the correlation between calorie intake and fat storage/burning is not 1:1

>>76421109
This is such prime vip bait bro
Have a good day anon

>>76421128
If you eat a regular diet with similar macros every day then how does that prove CICO?
CICO would only be proven if you went on a different diet with the same calories and had the same results

>>76421121
So if you cut 200 calories from your intake you won't lose weight?

>i counted calories while i ate a well rounded nutritious diet and with healthy protein, carbs, fiber, veggies and fruit
>So that proves that i could've lost the same amount of weight if i had eaten twinkies because CICO just works

>>76421157
Serious question: how many threads up are not bait abd would this board function without it?

There is a reason it's mostly just dyels here. Very little genuine cinversation happems here because the loudest snd most obnoxious voices prevail

>>76421164
Not necessarily no

>>76421173
What if you cut 1k?

>>76421178
From what?

>>76421184
From your regular caloric intake

>>76421197
what margin of error are we operating with in this scenario?

>>76419243 (OP)
Like 12. You guys never met skinny people who eat whatever and don’t gain weight? They’re everywhere, fuck you have guys here complaining that they can’t gain weight.

>>76421205
Answer my question, would you lose weight or not?

>CICO
just stop calling it that already and refer to it as energy balance and that'd clear this shit up in 95% of cases of discussion.

>>76420237
8 years

>>76421138
so you are implying eating a certain amount of calories with food being the same is not CICO?

>>76421211
you would probably lose weight but how much would depend on BMR, NEAT, TEF, thyroid, hormones, stress, diet composition, nutrition, etc
Which means that CICO is not true

>>76421214
Only if the acronym "CICO" somehow has a hidden clause that factors in your diet's effect on your weight loss

>>76419269
You wrote this with an AI it’s so painfully obvious.

>>76421227
>hidden clause that factors in your diet's effect on your weight loss
That's just counting calories and seeing if your weight changes.

>thermodynamics isn't real
or
>CICO (used as a noun [incorrectly]) is a bad diet
Please be specific because otherwise this thread would be BAIT and that would violate global rule 3 :^)

>>76421247
>CICO cultist running under the janny's skirt
CICO is a scam, especially the CO part

>Strawman A
>or Strawman B

>>76421257
so how the fuck i'm i supposed to lose weight if i don't count calories?

>>76421271
Eat less, eat food you can digest well, keep your macros in mind to suit your needs. No need for CICO mumbo jumbo it's all bunk anyway. Eating is natural you don't need a calculator.

I just started eating 700-1000kcal per day, mostly white fish, for like 2 weeks, and lost enough bodyfat to where my abs are visible without a pump, while still maintaining my lmao2pl8 bench
So uh... CICO worked in my case? Woah!
Seething powersharters need not reply to me, I'll be going /out/ for the next 2 weeks, and won't bother reading this dogshit thread again.

>>76421223
So if you cut calories you indeed lose weight, thank you

>>76421322
if you have hypothyroidism you might not

>>76421329
>If you have hypothyroidism, you won't lose weight on a calorie deficit
Kek

>>76421334
how do you know you're in a calorie deficit?

>>76421342
When you lose weight over a time period

>>76421351
So
>>76420313

>>76421329
I'm sure 75% of the American population has hypothyroidism

>>76421371
5%
hypothyroidism disproves cico

WTF bros I wish someone told me CICO was bullshit before I dropped 50 pounds by tracking my calories.

>>76421121
>burning fat and storing fat affects weight
Ok, I'm not saying it's 1:1 either. How do you think you store fat and lose it?. Excess calories will be stored as fat (energy for later use). In a deficit, your body will start eating away at the stored fat (using that energy).

>>76421235
Are you allergic to rational takes or does everything have to be sensationalized?

>>76421358
Congratulations you figured it out
Post a before and after picture of your body after dieting for 5 months

>>76421405
>Excess calories will be stored as fat
All of them? at a 100% rate? at the same rate no matter what? no matter the diet?

where are the morbidly obese anorexics with hypothyriodism?

>>76421410
>Congratulations you figured it out
Yes i've figured out that CICO believers use circular logic as their proof of CICO working

>>76421445
How would you go on about losing those 70lbs of excess fat of yours? Eat more or less?

>>76421454
>Eat more or less?
depends.
Fx if i was a retard who fell for CICO and ate nothing but Bacon and soda then i would probably try and eat more food but replace it with healthier foods. Fiber, protein, less fat more complex carbs
Because i unlike CICO thinks diet matters

>>76419243 (OP)
nowhere

>>76421437
no obviously fat will be stored with greater ease than carbohydrates, but dont think that the conversion (of carbs to fats) is some great metabolic feat that requires tremendous energy, your body can do it no problem and if it couldnt, you'd be in trouble as excess carbohydrates would just float around

>>76421468
you know people have lost fat on nothing but fast food, right?

diet matters for practicality and convenience more than anything. your fat loss during this diet you mentioned would still occur due to CICO and i think under the contrarianism you know this yourself

>>76421481
>you'd be in trouble as excess carbohydrates would just float around
It can turn it into heat. And De novo lipogenesis is rare.
Humans usually don't store carbs as fat

>>76419243 (OP)
Saying CICO is bullshit is like saying gravity doesn't work after you fall down some stairs.

>>76421485
>you know people have lost fat on nothing but fast food, right?
And that proves they they would've lost the exact same amount of weight on any other diet?
If i pray every day for weight loss and i lose weight does that prove my prayers?

>>76421468
Yes you would eat less calorie dense foods and more food that is low in calories which ultimately boils down to you inputting less calories than outputting calories resulting in fat loss

>>76420420
lmao based. everyone here arguing about CICO like drooling donkey retards meanwhile I lose 30lbs since the start of the year
>test
>anavar
>just put down the fork you monkey
ive done this without PEDs and it still works, coping monkeys in this thread

>>76421496
>All stairs will hurt you equally to fall down from
>it doesn't matter if it's wooden stairs or bricks or if there's a carpet on it
>only thing that matters is the number of stairs you fall down on
>What?? you disagree?? Are you denying gravity??

>>76421507
How much less calories am i eating in your fantasy?

>>76421516
If you want to lose 70lbs of fat you need to burn atleast 245000kcal of energy. Wether you do it by eating less or being more active physically is your choice

CICO is great, but the only reason you should be autistically tracking all that is if you're a body builder.

Otherwise, it's literally just
>I'm too fat; I should eat less and exercise a bit more
>I'm too skinny; I should eat more and lift some

That's literally it. Sure, there are exceptions with genetic issues all that, but the exceptions simply prove the rule. But the vast majority of people over-complicate it because they literally can't just eat more or less, and stick to a simple routine. Again, the only reason you need to get insane with any of this is if your physique is your livelihood.

>>76421520
>Wether you do it by eating less or being more active physically is your choice
That's the only factors in weight loss?

>>76421541
Yes. Some people have a lower TDEE value so they have to eat even less to lose the same amount of fat.

>>76421504
As long as you are in a caloric deficit you will lose weight. The type and amount will vary based on the diet (a diet lacking in protein will have more muscle loss, etc.). But the fact remains, if your goal is just LOSE WEIGHT, then as long as you EAT LESS, you will lose weight.

>>76421547
>Some people have a lower TDEE
and this is constant no matter the diet?

>>76421548
So CICO is short for Calories in Calories out depending on the type and amount depending on the diet (a diet lacking in protein will have more muscle loss, etc.)

>>76421378
Yet somehow populations worldwide only become fat after they get acces to calorie dense food. Curious!

>>76421633
Yes eating a lot of fat and sugar tends to make you gain bodyfat

>>76421653
So do you agree that being able to eat 1k calories for less than 1 hour of work instead of starving on subsistence farming is why people get fat?

>>76421492
>De novo lipogenesis is rare. Humans usually don't store carbs as fat
are you just parrotting what you read on ray peat forums by people who wish to delude themselves into thinking they can eat however much they want as long as it's sugar (but not starch, because according to ray that IS fattening, due to insulin) or do you have a valid reason to deny that de novo lipogenesis is absolutely a well established pathway which has been proven (via isotope labeling etc) to occur in humans
>It can turn it into heat.
excess calories do raise energy expenditure (and obese people have fare greater energy expenditures than normal weight people, who in turn have greater energy expenditures than lean people) but not indefinitively. just like cutting calories to zero won't drop your body temperature to zero, so too won't raising calories increase body temperature ad infinitum. interestingly there's new data showing that extreme protein restrictions lead to this kind of increase in energy expenditure (or you could just eat less)

>>76421504
>>76421595
protein malnutrition is an abnormal state, of course it will lead to abnormal results. if you are feeding your body even half-properly it will know what to do in states of too much or too little calories. contrary to what people who claim that calories are just "units of heat", the body does actually track energy intake and modulates its energy reserves based on that

>>76419243 (OP)
CICO was always an obvious psyop designed to deflect from the real causes of obesity like sneed oils

>>76419428
You're indian or south american
Reply if angry and brown

>>76421755
i ate a rallys burger and large fries the other day and had the worst rancid shit last night. i never had that issue ever when i worked there and we used tallow/grease to fry everything.

i guarantee 100% they switched to sneed oils in the deep fryer, the old owner was so fucking based. he knew before anyone did.

>>76421728
>are you just parrotting what you read on ray peat forums
No it's science
>just like cutting calories to zero won't drop your body temperature to zero, so too won't raising calories increase body temperature ad infinitum
It's takes a lot of carbs to get to the point of DNL
Yet another thing CICO believers ignore

>>76421741
>if you are feeding your body even half-properly
CICO diet promotes that it doesn't matter
well they flip flop a lot on this anyway
I think they've changed their mind on this now 10 times itt
Sometimes it's CICO sometimes it's CICO*****

There are people who are more retarded than CICO deniers but they are rare and far between.

>>76419243 (OP)
when I discovered that CICO is essentially a scam or half truth perpetrated by big food to sell you processed and ultra processed food
watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxyxcTZccsE

CICO to explain/obtain weight gain or weight loss is like saying the reason your house burnt down is because the temperature of the materials exceeded their ignition point instead of just saying you left the stove on.
It's technically true so autists love it, but it's not remotely useful or helpful.

>>76421881
Great video

>>76421946
So being mindful of what, and how much, you eat alongside how active you are is not useful information...?

Absolutely fucking retarded take and I am frankly embarrassed that I share the internet with so many people like you clogging it up with shit..

>>76421535
Hypothyroidism. Genetic predisposition.

Two twins, identical, ate everything the same. One was 8 stone, the other 16 stone. Why? They explained she had a genetic disposition for storing fat, and its far more common than previously thought.

The problem are mega corporations exploiting addiction to sell unhealthy products

>>76419429
>best character in the show is also an architect
he is LITERALLY me

>>76421257
>you don't burn calories
got it, so it's bait.

>>76421964
Best character? He was a ruthless, violent assassin!

>>76421962
This is like saying lifting weights is pointless because some elite lifter has better genetics than you and build muscles faster instead of quit bitching and lifting more

>>76421854
who's "they"? the people telling you that for practical purposes regarding weight calories matter more than any orthorexic neurosis? well just for you i won't flip flop and will state it very clearly that for practical purposes it's CICO but if you want to get nit-picky and technical then other considerations and hypotheticals matter as well. understood?

>>76421958
>So being mindful of what, and how much, you eat alongside how active you are is not useful information...?
We're telling you you should care about what you eat beyond counting calories because just counting calories doesn't make you mindful of what you eat

>>76421991
So you're CICO*****
Okay got it

Tell me what you think ATP is and how it works before I take anything you have to say seriously

>>76421985
>This is like saying lifting weights is pointless because some elite lifter has better genetics than you and build muscles faster instead of quit bitching and lifting more
CICO is like saying
>you just need to do enough reps and your muscles will grow no matter what
>okay but how do i know i'm doing enough reps?
>when your muscles grow

>>76421830
10 seconds on google proved you wrong
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0899900724002661

>Although fat storage resulting from fat intake is more favorable for fat mass accrual than carbohydrates due to molecule structure and metabolism (e.g., oxidation and thermic effect), carbohydrates can substantially participate in lipogenesis and esterification under excess carbohydrate intake over time.


and also why the fuck wouldnt your body store it as fat when that would obviously be more useful than raising your temperature for no reason. the biochemical pathway is not that complex and takes minimal energy. peatards are genuienly a worse breed than ketards

>>76422001
you are absurdly pedantic

is it CICO**************** to say that a pillowcase won't gain adipose tissue if you put a lot of food in it? the point of CICO isn't to be some universal law of thermodynamics (although in the context of metabolism CICO is validated by thermodynamics) but rather a principle to utilize to manage weight, up or down.

>>76422022
>Use online TDEE calculator working with an average of 8 billion people
>Adjust average number to specific observations for yourself
>NOOOOOOOOOOOO WHY CAN'T I JUST CALCULATE A NUMBER
You can, it requires making observations based on a benchmark, for which a TDEE based on an average of people is a good starting point. Are you just lazy or stupid?

>>76422022
>okay but how do i know i'm doing enough reps?
>when your muscles grow
Yes you retard, if you're not growing while eating enough is because you don't have enough volume so you should lift more

>>76421969
You burn them but you don't know exactly how many, all estimates are vastly wrong and barely take into consideration the calories you consume to digest the food. This is why CICO is a cult, they turned common sense into quantifiable numbers (based on nearly nothing) to scratch the people's autism. Sad, really.
Want to lose weight? Eat less, move more
Want to gain weight? Eat more, move more
Follow your progress and adjust accordingly, no made up astrology-tier estimates needed.

>>76422051
>don't learn anything about training
>just do more reps
t. CICO believer
funny isn't it

>>76421582
There are no foods that slow your metabolism. Although losing muscle mass by not eating protein can occur. How long are you going to continue this charade? There is no gotcha moment for you, fatty.
CICO is law.

>>76420500
>that's an eating disorder

AYO THIS GUY THINKS LOSING WEIGHT IS AN EATING DISORDER

>>76422086
And I need to mention that less muscle mass lowers TDEE

>>76419280
No, please elaborate

I'd skull fuck the shit out of her though. Running mascara and all

>>76422033
>the point of CICO isn't to be some universal law of thermodynamics
Weird because i've been told that itt
>although in the context of metabolism CICO is validated by thermodynamics
It's not. thermodynamics proves nothing about fat storage
Do you think your shit is 0 calories?
Does lactose intolerance break the laws of thermodynamics ?

>>76422086
Whole foods, carbs and protein effect TDEE

>>76422065
>Want to gain weight? Eat more, move more
you mean make your CI > CO?
>Want to lose weight? Eat less, move more
you mean make your CO > CI?
Glad we agree.

>>76422127
No

>>76422077
Yes, I eat more and I get bigger, I eat less and I get leaner
I train more and I put on more muscles. This will stay true until I reach my natty limit. Meanwhile you're still going to be overweight

>>76422152
You might reach it faster if you learn some proper form and technique and you use a good rep range instead of just doing contant retard reps
Also you might grow more if you stop eating junk food and focused on healthy nutritious whole foods
Ofc you think those things are worthless

>>76422172
>Also you might grow more if you stop eating junk food and focused on healthy nutritious whole foods
I already did that my entire life, I call it eating. Sorry your parents let yourself stuff your face at McDonald's every evening

>>76422065
You know it's not supposed to be able to count minutia right? That's why you START WITH AN ESTIMATE. Like a big broad rough number that isn't minutia. And you adjust it based on estimated numbers. Nobody is saying "count everything down to the 0.0000Xth calorie". Nobody has ever said that. You've invented a person in your head.

>>76422241
ECIECO

>>76422194
>I already did that my entire life
so you haven't tried to eat the same amount of calories but with a shit diet?
>McDonald's
Oh it suddenly matters now?
So you're not CICO?

>>76422102
>thermodynamics proves nothing about fat storage
Thermodynamics as a model applied to fat storage is fine, Hess's law allows you to perform thermodynamic calculations involving many chemical reactions. As the metabolic pathways are better understood through study, these calculations become more accurate.
>Do you think your shit is 0 calories?
Why would it be? Obviously some ~10% of your food won't digest fully. This has nothing to do with the storage of energy though.
>Does lactose intolerance break the laws of thermodynamics ?
No, it just proves some people lack the ability to produce the enzymes needed to mediate the reactions the body uses to transfer energy with lactose. Just because you didn't learn the metabolic pathway chemical reactions in high school doesn't mean the rest of us didn't.

>>76422267
I am CICO. I don't eat fast food because it gives me bad shits and it's expensive but I'm sure I would've no problem bulking on it or cutting by eating only 1 happy meal a day
>so you haven't tried to eat the same amount of calories but with a shit diet?
When I was a poor student I could only afford to eat nut much pasta and little else and I dropped 5 kg

>>76422270
>Obviously some ~10% of your food won't digest fully. This has nothing to do with the storage of energy though.
so taking a shit and shitting out undigested calories is part of thermodynamics ?
>No, it just proves some people lack the ability to produce the enzymes needed to mediate the reactions the body uses to transfer energy with lactose
>Just because you didn't learn the metabolic pathway chemical reactions in high school doesn't mean the rest of us didn't.
you learned that in physics?
Enzymes is part of Thermodynamics?
>although in the context of metabolism CICO is validated by thermodynamics
except we have to factor in digestion, enzymes, etc
is that part of Thermodynamics?

>>76422290
>but I'm sure I would've no problem bulking on it or cutting by eating only 1 happy meal a day
Oh okay. You accused me of being a fat mcdonalds eater but as it turns out you don't believe one gets fat from fast food because you're a CICO believer.
Well i would advice you not to eat junk food
>When I was a poor student I could only afford to eat nut much pasta and little else and I dropped 5 kg
I don't doubt OPICO works (Only Pasta in Calories Out)

>>76422337
You wanted an example of shit diet I gave you that
> it turns out you don't believe one gets fat from fast food because you're a CICO believer.
I do believe it's easier to eat extra 2k calories of fast food compared to eating extra 2k calories of cabbage. I still believe it's the excess calories making you fat

>>76420780
CICO is not some kind of strict ruleset about how you eat and how much you burn. It's a simple statement "Calories in vs calories out" dictates if you are loosing or gaining weight. Your individual burn can change through many factors but should be somewhat stable. If you eat below this number you loose weight, if above you gain. This number can't be predicted, but approximated.
That is why you start out with a general number and adjust accordingly.

The quality of your food matters for general health. Noone is advocating fast food or snickers.
If eating less works for you good for you. It is literally CICO.

>>76422368
>CICO is not some kind of strict ruleset
you have people itt saying it's Thermodynamics
>If eating less works for you good for you. It is literally CICO.
If it works it's always CICO though according to CICO.
>>76421548

>>76422302
>so taking a shit and shitting out undigested calories is part of thermodynamics ?
By virtue of the fact that all reaction kinetics and energy transfer falls under the umbrella of thermodynamics, yes.
>you learned that in physics?
No bio, then first year biochem again.
>Enzymes is part of Thermodynamics?
By virtue of the fact that all reaction kinetics and energy transfer falls under the umbrella of thermodynamics, yes. They're just catalysts, it's high school level shit dude.
>except we have to factor in digestion, enzymes, etc
Yes, that is how metabolism studies are done.
>is that part of Thermodynamics?
By virtue of the fact that all reaction kinetics and energy transfer falls under the umbrella of thermodynamics, yes. Hess's law is how you incorporate those many chemical reactions into a meaningful "energy used -" and is part of how those generalized TDEE calculators are made.
I'm sorry you seem to have gone to a poor school, but all of this is free information in the internet age.

>>76421985
No it is not like saying that.

It is DIRECTLY saying that people can eat the exact same food in the exact same proportion at the exact same time and experience different results.

It actually upset the twins as they could no longer eat the same, they had to adjust.

>>76422563
Are you mentally retarded? One twin evidently ate more than he needed so he got fat. Otherwise we could plug a dynamo up his ass and get free energy

>>76422571
They ate the same food and one got fat and the other didnt. You are fucking dumb bro

>>76422741
They said* they ate the same food
plenty of studies out there show lardasses lie about how much they eat

>>76422782
fatties will never touch this
they can never cite a single study of an inpatient setting showing that eating the same calories in similar people leads to different weight changes

>>76421437
I feel like this is a loaded question. Some of that energy will be lost of course through the process of lipogenesis. It takes energy for anabolic reactions to take place. Opposite for catabolic reactions, they release energy (burning fat in this case) .Not really sure what you're saying here. I said it's not 1:1 but that doesn't mean CICO is nullified. At the end of the day, if you eat more cals than used , you will put on size, vice versa. Don't get me wrong, there are other factors that come into play. Everyone is different so approaches will vary. At the end of the day, CICO hold relevance.
>TLDR: don't care, still tracking calories

>>76422851
Wtf are you on about, its well documented

>>76423326
post one, with people that are actually similar

>>76423359
The twins!!! Holy fuck.

>>76423396
post study

>>76423414
Sure I'll make a new thread because this ones over

>>76423430
>over
>not archived
nigger

>>76423434
Over like your sex life

>>76423438
woman hands typed this

>>76423446
>using woman as an insult

>>/r9k/ go now

>>76423450
who are you quoting?