Thread 76712282

c-cicofag bros.... what's our cope here??

hope you like teeth literally melt off your mouth

>>76712282 (OP)
>coke zero is less than 10 calories (rounded up)
>30 coke zeroes is 30*~10~=300 calories rounded up)
>300 calories is ~= the calories burned walking or biking for an hour
this is easily achievable if you are not a lardass.

>>76712304
>coke zero out of nowhere
Lmao. You genuinely think that if you drink 4k calories of coke you will eventually end up as a 300lbs obese man, how can you not realize you're a retarded nigger

>>76712337
>if you think eating more calories than you expend means you'll gain weight, you're retarded
is this bait that I fell for or what?

>>76712282 (OP)
UUUUMM SHE LIAR AND UH SHE WOMAN AND CICO RULE!

All anti cico spam is from idf or Russian bots
Don’t engage

>>76712337
Weigh yourself whilst hydrated
Eat 10,000 calories and do your exercise
Weigh yourself whilst hydrated after your exercise the next day

I'm sure you wouldn't have gained weight at all bro!!!

>>76712282 (OP)
I dont think sugar is bad for you, at least if your not consuming fat aswell.

>>76712534
Sugar is addictive my man

>>76712282 (OP)
CICO does not account for the bioactivities of foods. She finna die of lardass liver disease: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/diet-drinks-harder-liver-than-sugary-drinks-2025a1000r95

>>76712282 (OP)

drank 8 cans of olipop today. just started drinking a spindrift. life is good.

>>76712406
the body does not treat carbohydrate (sugar) and fat the same, they are two different macronutrients.

>>76712282 (OP)
>30 cola a day
if it's cans that's about 10 liters of liquid
unless their drinks come in shot glasses they are just lying

>>76712672
Carbs promote energy retention while fat is easier to store because it's already fat. While they function differently, the end result is pretty much the same. You will only notice a considerable difference in unbalanced diets that are likely unhealthy to begin with (ones that have too little or too much fat).

>>76712517
>Eat 10,000 calories
bet you felt smart typing this but I cannot even if I try

>>76712563
So is caffeine and nicotine, never take them outside the gym, I missed the part where that's my problem.

U T A H
T
A
H

>>76712672
Not even remotely relevant to the conversation.

>>76712282 (OP)
Cicocultists btfo yet again

>>76712406
>ummhh yes if you eat plutonium you will gain 1 million kgs, am I being baited here?

>>76712282 (OP)
>Op believes a tlc show
I hope for your sake you're a woman

in all seriousness though, does anyone who isn't trolling actually believe that CICO is not how it works? I can't comprehend a mind that doesn't accept it, it's like they want people to think they're retarded or something

>>76713475
It's a part of how it works, but it's obviously too reductive.

>>76712282 (OP)
Check the video this bitch is smoking hot

>>76713529
what do you mean "too reductive"?
if more energy (in the form of burnable mass) comes in than your body burns then the surplus is stored as fat, if less energy comes in then the body burns fat storage in order to get the amount of energy it needs.

it's not reductive, it's quite literally how it works and it's a fact, there's no way somebody would go against it if they're not trolling.

>>76713561
Hes trying to start an argument. The answer to your question is no, nobody who isnt trolling actually believes that

>>76713475
I'm not trolling and I know that it's only a partial explanation. The body has the ability to let calories flush straight through the digestive system without uptake. For example, keto diets show that 5-15% of calories are not utilized, due to an altered digestive process.

More, the body has mechanisms with which it consolidates fats (insulin spikes mean that processes begin internally to store fats, instead of burn them). This is seen in people who eat a lot of sugar and fruit. Ancestrally speaking, those high sugar foods were available to the ancestors Indo-European peoples only during the late summer in fall, a time where you'd want to store up fats internally as winter approached. So by doing that - or refraining - you'd be altering rates of fat storage, regardless of calories.

Another thing to think about regarding average recommended daily intake is that different bodies have different metabolic rates, so their caloric thresholds vary.

People who say "CICO" are actually saying "I don't want to have to think about this and I don't like nuance", which is self-limiting.

>>76713637
Ithe fad diet thing is quite literally still CICO, you'd be absorbing less calories (if true which is doubtfull but anyway) which changes nothing at all.
>the body has mechanisms with which it consolidates fats (insulin spikes mean that processes begin internally to store fats, instead of burn them)
ok I have no idea what you're talking about here, do you have something I can read on this? it sounds like it'd be negligible anyway.
>Another thing to think about regarding average recommended daily intake is that different bodies have different metabolic rates, so their caloric thresholds vary.
average recommended daily intake? what are you talking about?
yes, different people burn different amounts of calories, how does that contradict/disprove CICO at all?
>People who say "CICO" are actually saying "I don't want to have to think about this and I don't like nuance", which is self-limiting.
it's not self limiting since every single time it's proven right, yes, counting calories isn't that exact, all of the "nuance" you're talking about is negligible, the margin of error when counting calories is so small.

godbye kidney

>>76713662
>you'd be absorbing less calories
People define the "Calories In" portion as what goes into the mouth, not what happens with them once they're consumed. The fact that many "Calories In" can pass right through a body under certain circumstances disproves this assumption.

>>76713662
>ok I have no idea what you're talking about here, do you have something I can read on this? it sounds like it'd be negligible anyway.
For sure. To start, there is a good synopsis in the middle of this study:
>Thus, the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model of obesity (CIM) proposes that a high-carbohydrate diet – including large amounts of refined starchy foods and sugar, as commonly consumed in the low-fat diet era9,10 – produces postprandial hyperinsulinemia, promotes deposition of calories in fat cells instead of oxidation in lean tissues, and thereby predisposes to weight gain through increased hunger, slowing metabolic rate, or both.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6082688/

Insulin tells the fat cells to take in glucose and fats and store them. It also blocks the release and burning of stored fats, preferring glycogen stores (which are abundant due to the style of eating).

In the study, they show that animals fed high-glycemic load diets have larger fat cells and more body fat, even when eating the same amount of calories as those without.
>Even when calorie-restricted to prevent excessive weight gain, insulin-treated animals still developed excessive body fat
and from this study:
>Partially pancreatectomised male Sprague-Dawley rats were given diets with identical nutrients, except for the type of starch: high-GI (n=11) or low-GI (n=10).....
>Despite having similar mean bodyweight, rats given high-GI (Glycemic Index) food had more body fat and less lean body mass than those given low-GI food. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)16937-7/abstract


So, in modern diets with people eating foods with high glycemic loads, their insulin levels are spiking 12 months per year, promoting fat consolidation in a way that our ancestors generally only experienced in the late summer and autumn.

>>76712282 (OP)
Pop doesn't really have many calories.

/fit/fags vastly overestimate the caloric content of foods they deem inacceptable, like pop or potatoes.

>>76713264
calories =/= Calories, cute joke though! You seem very triggered by being told "walking and biking burns Calories" for some reason, are you fat?
>>76712672
okay, nobody mentioned that though. I don't know what that has to do with 30 coke zero being less than 300 Calories or how that many Calories are easily burned by regular amount of activity. You seem very triggered by being told "walking and biking burns Calories" for some reason, are you fat?

>>76713264
"calories" are a unit of energy used in thermodynamic settings in order to understand physical phenomena. "Calories" are a unit of energy used in biological settings to describe usable energy gained from the process of digestion.
The human body does not have enzymes needed to extract energy from nuclear fission, so while plutonium has many calories of energy, it does not have Calories of energy.
Of course you already know this, because it's 6th grade science.

Every single attempt to dispel CICO here focuses on the CI and pays fuckall zero attention or even factors in the CO part. Shit's comical.

>>76713777
sure, how much does it vary? do you have any proof at all that a retarded fad diet can make you absorb fewer calories?
this "argument" to disprove CICO is grasping at straws.

>>76713877
CICO is inherently disproven just by the fact that it says that you can fill a 1 gallon jug with 2 gallons of water, ignoring that the second gallon will overflow. I'm trying to show you mechanisms with which the body decides to consolidate consumed calories, and when it decides to discard them.

Person A eats three pounds of steak (3680 calories) in a day and drinks water.

Person B eats 1 pound of steak (1227 calories), 1/2 pound of potato chips (1217 calories), four Chips Ahoy chocolate chip cookies (220 calories), a peanut butter and jelly sandwich (375 calories), two Cokes (280 calories), two bananas (210 calories) and a tall glass of milk (150 calories).

Nearly equivalent caloric intake. CICO pretends that equivalent consumed calories means that Person A and Person B will face the same obesogenic challenge, though we know that Person B is going to be the one facing weight issues.

>>76712450
pashol nahuy ebanie gandon

>>76713855
You can only calculate the CO part after the fact, so it's kinda useless. Might as well just weigh food instead(and eat the same ones) and disregard calories altogether.

>>76713855
CI is much easier to control than CO. Most people recommending calorie counting to lose weight do address the CO too: that's what "use a TDEE calculator to get a rough baseline then check your weight for a few weeks and adjust accordingly" is, measuring your average daily CO.

>>76713674
i have another

>>76712754
nobody lies about shit like this on the internet to get monetized views and free reposts on incel boards like 4chan for retards to argue about it.
This this chink whore says she drinks 30 cokes, she drinks 30 cokes.

>76714012
Silence k1ke