Thread 76548486

>>76548486 (OP)
there is nothing that will ever make me doubt CICO

>>76548500
>in the short term
>strawmanning something no one has ever argued
>doesn't even read the op
"The mean on the low carb diet lost three times as much abdominal fat as the men on the low fat diet."

>>76548500
glycerol, creatine, betaine and potassium solves this problem these are common pwo ingredients so spare me the inevitable reply

>>76548515
>Makes thread about beaten dead horse argument
>I don’t want to argue though quit replying
Only somebody whose brain is being strangled to death by their fat would behave in this manner

>>76548527
I didn't make the thread and as expected you're a braindead retard Enjoy your goislop

1) "Both diets were calorie restricted" doesnt mean that both diets consumed the same number of calories.

2) even if both diets wer equalised to the same number of calories, the results would still not be identical; there are hormonal differences betweem high fat diets and high carb doets that can boos or slow down metabolsm (that function known as "calories out"). Also, low fat OR low carb diets (depedning on food choices) may be more or less, processed with more or less fiber, which affects the rate at which calroies are absorbed (part of that function knwon as "calories in")

3. Calories in doesn't mean "calories shoveled into pie hole," in means "net calories broken down and absorbed, whcih may be higher or lower depending on what kind of low fat or high fat diet is selected. A high fat diet consiting of whole foods and high fiber (for example a high fat diet consisting of steak and salad with ranch dressing) will result in fewer net calories absorbed than the exact same number of calories in a high fat, but highly processed diet of tendies and fries OR a low fat meal of cream of rice with honey, a bagel with jelly and glass of orange juice.

what I want a CICO hater to show me is one example - just one in a world of billions, where body fat was lost but the person consumed and absorbed MORE calories than what they burned off. Just one. Show me where eating MORE than what you burn off causes weight loss.

>>76548552
Based and energy-balance pilled

>>76548552
>cico is true!!!
>but you can't actually properly estimate your calories in because of absorption or something and calories out changes depending on your hormones, checkmate anti cicotards
K

>>76548486 (OP)
>n=28
>trusting fat "people" to accurately count their calories

>>76548642
fat women even

>>76548486 (OP)
>a study involving 28 people
Oh My Science!!!

>28 people
Nice sample size dawg!

according to this study the low-fat diet is superior in terms of fat loss to muscle mass loss compared to the high fat low carb diet.

>>76548486 (OP)
>lean mass was ~30% of weight lost for men in low carb group
grim

Ok. So now that we've established this, you're going to stop whining about cico on the internet and just lose some weight?

>>76548880
>people

>>76548515
>My diet isn't a meme, I promise. I just need to buy supplements in order to be able to function.

>>76548486 (OP)
Me:
>Counted calories at least once (consistently) in my life
>Sees it worked
>Estimates and balances my calories
>Am slim, lean, and strong
You:
>Counted calories for two days
>Concluded it didn't work
>Screeches about how CICO doesn't work
>Is fat, pudgy, and weak

We are not the same.

>>76548552
>1) "Both diets were calorie restricted" doesnt mean that both diets consumed the same number of calories.
good job not being able to read, tardo. the low carb group consumed MORE calories, lost more weight and lost 3x as much abdominal fat.
>2) even if both diets wer equalised ...
yes, there are hormonal differences. low carb lowers insulin secretion which enables lypolysis. notice which is why even though the low carb group consumed more calories they did lose more body fat.
>3. Calories in doesn't mean "calories shoveled into pie hole,"...
that's great to know. how do you think would you actually measure "calories in, calories out"? if you wanted to actually do that you would AT THE VERY LEAST burn your own shit to measure what is left over(which is done in laboratory conditions by actual scientists). none of you CICO tards ever mention that. on top of that the body is not a closed system. if you actually wanted to create something like an energy balance you'd have to draw a virtual boundary around the body and measure everything that goes in AND out. CICO is an entirely pointless concept as it fully ignores the effect of hormones (which the study in OP shows, that's the effect of insulin, leptin and other hormones which are heavily influenced by the type of nutrient you consume) and on top of that fails to properly create a trackable energy balance (again, open system, measure everything going in AND out).

>>76551258
he's just going to keep posting his garbage on this website forever until either he drops dead of a heart attack, his parents take away his internet access, or the jannies FINALLY ban him

>>76548486 (OP)
>28 people
Nice sample size you've got there retard. CICO werks.
t. studied biochemistry in college

don't care, am still losing weight through CICO (I don't count calories)

>>76548507
>30 day study
>why talking bout short term
This is your brain on keto