Thread 76724136

CICOfags on suicide watch

>>76724136 (OP)
https://www.liberty.edu/champion/2010/11/17/man-loses-27-pounds-with-twinkie-based-diet/
CICO-deniers BTFO'd by empiricism, which raises the question "why are zoomers so retarded, and what makes them turn to watching some 17 year old on youtube for information?". More at 6.

No one cares, faggot.

Science dorks getting dunked on daily, you love to see it

Buy an ad faggot

>>76724161
>Linking to literal propaganda
No thanks

>>76724161
“I am stuck in the middle. I guess that is the frustrating part. I cannot give a concrete answer. There is not enough information to do that.”

If I don't bring in calories I start to wither die. If I bring in too many calories I start to get bigly. Truly a mystery.

>>76724216
Yes, regarding actually eating twinkies as a means to lose weight, you retard. It still proves CICO works

>>76724220
You can't reduce macronutrients to calories

>>76724161
And did he stay thin or relapses from hunger and gained even more?
Yes, we do know that starvation leads to a weight loss. We also know that starwing in a long term isn't sustainable.
What's your point?

>>76724189
Thanks bro, it really was a cool story

>>76724136 (OP)
>diet guru slop video with 1.4k views despite clickbait title in 2025

not watching any of that

>>76724136 (OP)
>Bucket with hole in it
>Start pouring water into bucket
>Water pours out of hole slower than the water pouring in
>Bucket fills up
>Start pouring in less water than pours out of hole
>Bucket empties
>If you widen the hole, it takes more water to keep it filled
>If you match the water pouring out, the water in the bucket stays at the same level
How exactly was this """le deboonked"""?

>>76724254
facts don't care about your feelings

>>76724136 (OP)
Buy an ad, bitch

>>76724136 (OP)
Hmmmm… all of scientific community and common sense vs. some twink dyel on YouTube, who should I believe

>>76724487
>who should I believe
ed goeke

>>76724237
>starvation
Your fat ass never went a day without a meal in your life.

>Eat as much as you can
>move as much as you can
>sleep as much as you can
its pretty simple really, eat healthy shit. Stand all day, walk at your desk/outside, lift a decent amount do chores, then maybe add a pack if you want.

>>76724136 (OP)
Ok. Eat 10000 calories of clean food a day and let me know how that goes

>>76724555
Calories are not real. Macros are what matters.

Calories are obviously correllated to weight gain/loss but there are other factors at play that can affect that. CICO tards think that the numbers are the absolute only thing that determines weight loss.

>>76724161
No. Actually. Twinkle are unironically poison.
It woukd have been litterally better to fast.

Anyone telling you its all about calories are either junk food shills or have functional eating disorders.

Just dont eat and walk more. Thats all it takes.

>>76724136 (OP)
>some dyel is talking about fitness again

>>76724136 (OP)
>i'm exempt from the laws of thermodynamics because I JUST AM OKAY
lard goblin mentality

>>76724168
/thread

CICO is just people trying to manage their carb addiction

>>76724570
Macros aren't real. Nutrition can't be quantized. You are just as retarded as CICOers

>>76725178
"quantized" holy shit

>>76724136 (OP)
I have a strong suspicion that calories are not a proper way of calculating the bioavailability of food. Processed foods are probably 50% more calorically dense than stated on their levels.

>>76724136 (OP)
>1.4k views
buy and ad faggot

>>76724261
>Pour thick syrup into the bucket
>It empties much slower
I don't think calories are as uniform as we want to think. These foods aren't food.

>>76724401
and we don't care about your channel, nigger

>>76725178
>fat and protein aren't real
Then what are you eating?

>>76724237
Calories in calories out you fucking brain-dead protoplasmic cretin

Someone post the stadium pasta and bury these clowns again

>>76727136
i eat food, not numbers

>>76727404
mama give-a me da pasta

im-a big round meat-a-ball

>>76727404
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?

>>76724136 (OP)
Any excuse to eat more and get fatter.

>>76724136 (OP)
AntiCICO niggas be like
>dicks in and dicks out of my butt doesnt make me gay

theres literally no point engaging with anti-cico niggas. at best they're trolling, at worst they're too stupid to understand what the implications of cico actually are and how to use these implications effectively when planning a diet. whichever is the case, theres not much to be gained from talking to them.

>>76727561
it's fun to mock them

just don't bother engaging with their "arguments" since they're either retarded or trolling

>>76727630
yeah posts like >>76727552 are pretty funny but you see so many people actually trying to engage in their arguments and i just cant help but wonder why people are so easily baited on this website.

>>76727561
>don't want to be fat
>am smart
>am fat
>therefore it's impossible not to be fat
Simple logic.

So if CICO is true does that mean you can become morbidly obese in a day from consuming 1mg of uranium (1mg isnt lethal btw)?

I can tell from experience that counting calories is so miserable, and at the end of the day IIFYM is just an excuse to consume slop.

>>76727789
How can you become morbidly obese when you already are?

>>76725746
>I don't think calories are as uniform as we want to think.
A calorie is a calorie.
CICO deniers lack basic understanding of what happens in digestion.

If you eat a 200 calorie Donut vs a 200 calorie Broccoli it will literally not matter. It has nutritional differences, but the caloric content is the same.

Your body will store those extra calories as fat, post digestion. It's not magic. Imagine for a second if what you are saying would be true. Scientists would be able to tell what foods you were eating based on your stored fat cells. Because what you're claiming is that each calorie stored is unique to certain foods.

After it has been turned into calories, it must be burned or stored. There is no such thing as a bad or good calorie, because at that point anything determining if a food was "bad" or "good" has been removed, which is why there is no scientific distinction of a calorie. If there was a scientific distinction between calories it would be plastered everywhere in all youtuber sloppa bait telling you everything you need to know. But there isn't!

>>76724595
>CICO tards think that the numbers are the absolute only thing that determines weight loss.
Imagine for a moment that a man burns 2000 calories at rest per day.
If this man eats a 1500 calorie diet of Donuts per day in 1 week, how many calories did he lose in total?
If this man eats a 1500 calorie diet of Broccoli per day in 1 week, how many calories did he lose in total?

1lb of fat is 3000 calories.
How many days does the man need to diet on his Donut only diet to lose 1lb of fat?
How many days does the man need to diet on his Broccoli only diet to lose 1lb of fat?

Please tell me why you think that these diets would be different in speeds relating to losing fat.

The obvious answer to anyone with any understanding is that they cannot possibly be different. It is literally the only thing that matters for weight loss. You must burn the calorie or it is stored as fat. It's a binary situation.

Calories aren't real just eat chocolate bars. Trust this 17 year old twink that takes roids and east 50 calories a day.

Seriously if you listen to one of these retards making stupid claims you deserve your shitty results.

>>76727789
and if CICO is true why is fiber, a carb which are supposedly 4 Calories, count as zero calories? something doesn't add up

>>76727861
>Please tell me why you think that these diets would be different in speeds relating to losing fat
Hormones. Insulin especially.
>>76727869
>Calories aren't real just eat chocolate bars
In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity") or an apagogical argument, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that following the logic of a proposition or argument would lead to absurdity or contradiction

>>76727943
Grass can absorb sunlight, cow can digest grass, humans can eat uranium. Duh.

>>76724237
>Yes, we do know that starvation leads to a weight loss.
Calories in, calories out. Thanks for the admission.

>>76727950
>In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity") or an apagogical argument, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that following the logic of a proposition or argument would lead to absurdity or contradiction
Your point being?

>>76727997
Its a fallacy in this case.

>>76727842
your body potentially doesn't absorb or digest some foods or turn them into calories for use. This is why I think malabsorption of foods needs to be looked at.

>>76728017
Reductio ad absurdum isn't a fallacy. Why would you think it's a fallacy?

If cico isn't real why is it real???

>>76728044
This is true, although it doesn't really disprove cico. Rather it's more that our definitions of "calories in" needs to be revised for certain foods, because our bodies don't really take them in at all.

>>76728064
I don't think CICO is necessarily wrong. I think some foods are going to perform differently in the gut and metabolic processes though and the lack of acknowledgment of that is where a lot of this overwhelming noise in the argument comes from. Perhaps if you did a study of calorie intake measured and then checked the caloric content of waste/heat from the body you would get better data. What is the caloric content of feces.

>>76725738
Then you are wrong. It would be the opposite. 200 calories of unprocessed food would be available as 100 (this is likely not the number but for illustrative purposes works)' while a highly processed food of 200 calories would be closer to 175. You wouldn't plus up highly processed foods as they would have the stated calories but your access to them would be greater as they are predigested so to speak.

>>76727842
how was the manga of that pic called?

>>76728049
>calories aren't real just eat chocolate bars
>>76728115
>I don't think CICO is necessarily wrong
It's completely wrong. Fundamentally flawed, even.

>>76727427
>taking introductory physics in middle school. I am in a gifted program that offers science classes earlier because I am very smart
>teacher is introducing the concept of gravity. he's using Newtonian physics, which I know has been superseded by relativity. why are we still teaching this and the Bohr model of the atom?
>we have an exam where we need to answer how many seconds it will take for a ball dropped from 10 m high to hit the ground
>everyone else pulls out there calculators. I don't use one because I am very smart, but I wouldn't need it for this question anyway
>I answer that the question is unsolvable, as we don't know the mass and size of the ball (needed to compute air resistance since we're nto in a vacuum), and what gravitational constant to use (Earths? which one? it varies depending on factors such as altitude), position of the moon for tidal forces, whether there's any wind and even what lattitude we are at for computing the coriolis effect. also, it's impossible to drop the ball from exactly 10 meters and without any sideways motion at all
>dumbass teacher gives me an F. me! the smartest in the class
>I confront him, he gives me some bullshit about approximations and how there good enough
>I start yelling about how much smarter I am than him. he takes the class outside and has me hold a stopwatch while he drops a bunch of different balls, they all take about 1.4 seconds (BUT it does vary a bit! SEE!)
>the other students start to laugh and call me retarded, I try to show how much I know by explaining Xeno's paradox with my fist, end up hitting another student in the nose
>I fail physics and have to go leave the gifted program. all because I'm too smart for them to understand

>>76724604
why starve when I can just eat good food?
fasting is also an excuse to eat slop

>>76724227
Good thing nobody did that

>>76724261
Oh hey look, it's the stadium guy again.

>>76725738
I have a strong suspicion that you have literally zero evidence to even remotely begin to believe anything in the ballpark of this ridiculous statement

>>76728166
>LITERALLY calories IN
>somehow rhis disproves it

>>76727552
stop watching porn

>>76727869
>Trust this 17 year old twink that takes roids and east 50 calories a day.
who the fuck are you talking about, schizo?

>>76728166
Looks fuckable

>>76728115
>What is the caloric content of feces.
Put it in a calorimeter and find out like how they do with food.
The issue is that retards can't comprehend measuring things. And I don't mean getting out your shitty $20 Chinesium scale and blindly believing nutrition labels. I mean actual, real measurement. Everything ever measured is relative to something else (e.g. your scale is calibrated to a factory weight which is calibrated to a copy of Le Grand K which itself relative to platinum/iridium, until 2019 when things switched to Planck's constant, and that's if it's a high end device, otherwise it's literally just a best guess based on spec sheet of the load cell in the device). And every measurement has a margin of error.
You bring up a good point of how do they measure things going out: they don't. But also on the flip side: how do they measure things going in? They don't. Even taking something simple like a steak, people here google up its stats and think it's gospel. You think all steaks are equal? You think that ribeye has exactly the same fat composition as every single one you've ever bought? You think that cow has uniform muscle density? lmao.
Accurate measurement of CICO is hard to do, and retards think that their guestimates on the back of napkins is somehow concrete evidence for/against CICO when they barely fucking passed high school math and probably didn't even take a class that taught them good lab techniques. You retards didn't account for everything going in. You retards didn't account for everything going out. Whatever results you've acquired are shit and you're dumb.
You should take your attempt at CICO as an estimate. It can be used for trends in your diet, not exacting measurements/results. If you are estimating you should be 1000 kcal under while you're still fattening up: you've fucked up and it's 100% your dumbass fault, not some grand failure of CICO. If you're off by like 100-200 kcal, so what? That's good enough.

>>76724555
you can eat 10000 calories of only fruits every day and you will get lean and starve to death as there are no fats and no protein same with alcohol and for example with rabbit meat.

Funny enough, yes, CICO does not work well for gaining weight. For example, converting carbs to body fat (and protein to fat) is not very efficient; your body will only convert roughly 20%, and the rest is lost in the process. But yes, for losing weight on a normal diet, CICO is pretty accurate.

>>76724168
this

>>76728208
>you can eat 10000 calories of only fruits every day and you will get lean and starve to death
You'll get kidney stones and get fat from the sugar, dumb fuck.

>>76728225
Cool theory bro.

>>76728227
Proof its eating 10k calories of fruit, tard?

>>76728225
you will not get fat and you will starve to death as your body will not literally work properly because you dont get fat in your diet. example https://x.com/nexta_tv/status/1975825384139567150

similar with the rabbit meat but that is actually because of something called protein poisoning.

>>76728176
>insulin
>calories
Carbs raise insulin levels. Leading to fat storage. Calories are irrelevant.

>>76728246
Again.. you fucking TARD.. PROOF IT WAS EATING 10,000 CALORIES WORTH OF FRUIT
Jesus fucking Christ, do you people not fucking read?

>>76728246
It's not that CICO doesn't work, it's more like retard diets kill you because they are retarded. CICO will be fairly precise for most people under a normal and healthy diet.

>>76728235
Why not eat 10k calories of shredded newspapers and sawdust?
They burn and release heat, which is calories, therefore must allow you to gain weight, right?

You're not a science denier, right?

>>76728271
>of shredded newspapers and sawdust?
Reaching new levels of retard here

>>76728271
>Why not eat 10k calories of shredded newspapers and sawdust?

>>76728282
>>76728258
It always amuses me how incredibly hysterical CICO cultists get when confronted with arguments they don't understand.

>>76728289
This post >>76728208 states "10,000 of fruit"
And nothing replying to me has proof of 10,000 calories of fruit being consumed

Again, CICO niggers are just people trying to manage their carb addiction.

>>76724136 (OP)
Another day, another thread made by obese bitches

>>76728271
>>76727963

>>76728289
It amuses me how anti-CICOers have to spam cope because they can never
>post body

>>76728287
well, it works great on paper

>>76728310
Just the one samefag, I think.

>>76728291
I dont think any faggot tried to eat 10k calories of fruits but they are right. It is called kwashiorkor starvation. Your body will eat itself for proteins no matter how much calories you will eat.

>>76728347
>mfw
but it's not YOUR face though, is it? you didn't really
>post body

>>76728235
>>76728258
NTA but he was eating kgs worth of fruit a day, he had videos showcasing it. It wasnt 10k calories but it definitely was around 2k.

>>76728044
>>76728064
>>76728115
>your body potentially doesn't absorb or digest some foods or turn them into calories for use
>CICO deniers believe that by eating certain foods they can magically stop consuming the calories in those certain foods

Please answer my questions in my original post. >>76727842
When you consume 200 calories of any food, where do those calories go?
If you believe in common fucking sense as well as real science then you would know that those calories are either burned or stored.
But if you're retarded then you believe that somehow magically they disappear.

Now to help you steelman because I actually know what I'm talking about, there are ways to block digestion of foods (fat content), for example with Orlistat. However this isn't what we are discussing in context. We are discussing the normal digestion of normal foods. It doesn't matter if it's carrots, donuts, tacos, burgers, candy, etc. Your body will digest and absorb those calories in the same way. It's not magic.

500 calories of Carrots will be equal to 500 calories of Beef because your body will digest the caloric content. Do you understand now?

>>76728347
I did a lot better at throwing a baseball when I stopped drawing equations in the dirt and just practiced fundamentals. Physics debunked.

>>76727950
>>Please tell me why you think that these diets would be different in speeds relating to losing fat
>Hormones. Insulin especially.
But you failed to read
>Imagine for a moment that a man burns 2000 calories at rest per day.
The reason why you are associating high insulin levels to blocking calorie burning is because the fattards don't fucking do anything.
This is a different matter than CICO, which is what CICO deniers constantly try to do.
>but if your diet is bad then I can't lose weight!!!
Go fuck yourself, if you are in a caloric deficit then you will lose weight. End of story.

>>76728064
we already do that for things that make an actual difference, like fiber

>>76727789
If uranium was a food that could be digested as all other foods then yes. However that isn't the case because uranium isn't food.

>>76728142
If cico isn't real, then you can eat anything you want or not eat at all without effecting weight gain, which isn't the case. Disregarding things like vitamins, eating chocolate bars would be the logical conclusion of cico being false.

>>76728166
>even though I just ate a 1000 calorie diet
>I'm going to directly inject 1000000000 lbs of concrete into my veins
>SEE!!! I can't lose weight with just CICO.
CICOfags BTFO!!!!

>>76728417
We should expand this to include polyols (sugar alcohols found in Apples, apricots, blackberries, avocados, cauliflower, and mushrooms), resistant starch (whole grains, legumes, potatoes, and unripe bananas) and intact proteins (nuts).

There are also antinutrients like protease inhibitors and tannins, which bind to proteins and keep them from being digested, or in the case of phytates, bind to minerals which are needed for digesrive compounds to function correctly.

Seperate from this, there's also the thermoic effect, btw, which is most noticeable with high protein diets.

>>76728208
>you can eat 10000 calories of only fruits every day and you will get lean and starve to death as there are no fats and no protein same with alcohol and for example with rabbit meat.
Just do it for 1 week.
1 lb of fat is 3000 calories.
For fair estimation, just say you're going to burn 1500 calories per day because I know for sure you live a sedentary lifestyle.
Over 7 days you will lose 10,500 cal.
Over 7 days you will gain 70,000 cal.
Net gain is 59,500 cal.
At the start of the week if you weigh 200 lbs.
At the end of the week you will weigh 219 lbs.

>>76728459
*thermic effect

>>76728271
>in order to disprove CICO we should eat non-food items
you're a genius!!!

it would be nice for nutrition ꜱoyence to admit that they don't understand food nearly as much as they think they do, like the hairloss ꜱoyence does

>>76728208
>Funny enough, yes, CICO does not work well for gaining weight. For example, converting carbs to body fat (and protein to fat) is not very efficient; your body will only convert roughly 20%, and the rest is lost in the process. But yes, for losing weight on a normal diet, CICO is pretty accurate.
This is because like I mentioned in >>76728459
there are a lot of macros in normal food which aren't perfectly bioavailable. This means that to a small extent cico is limited, but not in the way the fatasses who criticize it think. They think cico is false and they can just eat whatever they want so long as The Patriarchy tells them they are beautiful kween and that it's really Body Colonizers who are keeping them out of shape. In reality, mother nature is cutting them a lot of slack by making the food a little less fattening than it should be, and these "people" are STILL 600 pounds!

>>76728491
To be fair, the dietary advice you received in school was given by the Department of Agriculture, a clientele agency set up to sell food.

>>76728459
not necessary, very minimal effect. reminder nutrition labels are off by up to 20% anyway. feel free to waste your time calculating it though

while you're at it you can look through some white papers and write your own bespoke algorithm for calories burned based on constant smartwatch data.

or you can just do the thing that works generally, weigh yourself weekly, and adjust accordingly

>>76728513
I agree with you about the labeling being off, which should be rectified, but
>not necessary, very minimal effect
That's not very helpful to the conversation. You aren't saying how much the effect is or backing it up with any evidence.

Hey guys I'm a FAT RETARD and I just want to keep eating the same amount of calories (I have zero self control) but I also want to be skinny and lean. Any tips??? CICO points will be ignored! :)

>>76728519
>how much
*or rather, you aren't giving a very precise answer, is what I mean.

>>76728527
how many digits of pi do you think you need, man? imma give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not playing dumb to make it seem like CICO is squaring the circle

>>76728524
Oh, yeah, cico is soooo stupid! Did you know that a lot of calories can't even be absorbed by the body? That means you should eat even more!

Did you know your hormones can effect how hungry you are? That means people telling you to diet and exercise are making you fat by stressing you out! It's not about what you eat at all!

>>76728545
>how many digits of pi do you think you need, man?
what?
>squaring the circle
???
Anon, have you been losing weight with meth again?

>>76728524
eat only animals

>>76728545
>giving him the benefit of the doubt
Yeah don't.

>>76724161
how does this guy quickly starving himself eating cardboard prove anything.

>>76728551
with math, actually

>>76728562
Imagine eating pi to lose weight

>>76728554
most importantly, only those endowed with a soul

>>76728564
I know it seems irrational, but I promise it's real.

>>76728569
>>76728554
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Gagh

>>76724487
you're too young to know, but all the consensus on weightlifting and nutrition today, now repeated by doctors, etc like they came up with it, was discussed in forums in early 00s directly against the "scientific" consensus.
This doesn't mean that everything said online is correct just because it's a minority opinion but sometimes we're just right and science must perform the experiments again and see what's truly going on.

>>76728560
>eat cardboard
>shit cardboard
>take that CICOtards!
>realize I ruined my keto diet by ingesting carbohydrates (obviously fiber calories count, or my previous point wouldn't work)
>hormones are fucked since stopped keto
>gain 100 lbs
>fuck

>>76728588
checked
Well, what is the caloric density of Tylenol? Yet it gives you the added weight of autism

>>76728579
you tell him, brother. and after that, us antedeluvian oldfags will laugh when science admits the Earth was flat all along. nothing new under the firmament

>>76728605
autism is low-calorie, unless you have ass-burgers

>>76728524
lookup butter bob briggs on youtube

>>76724161
Is everyone replying to you retarded? How do you miss the point this much? Obvi don’t eat twinkies, but eat less

>>76729050
2000 calories worth of meat aren't the same as 2000 calories worth of fruit
with the first one you'll have a healthy weight
with the second one you'll look like >>76728227

>>76724136 (OP)
If cico doesn't work then fasting shouldn't either

>>76729054
nigga you a fruit

>>76724227
It's almost as if both matter.

>>76729054
We’re on the same page here

>>76729084
>starving myself causes weight loss
>therefore CICO
>>76728409
>calorie burning
humans don't burn calories

>>76729120
humans burn witches. all will either recant basedence or burn at the steak

>>76729120
>humans don't burn calories
and cars don't burn gallons, but they disappear if you drive, and if you don't put any in it stops

>>76729120
humans burn witches. all will either recant basedence or burn at the steak

>>76729120
humans burn witches. all will either recant ꜱoyence or burn at the steak

>>76729109
Calories are a manmade metric which the human body doesn't recognize so they're irrelevant.

>>76729219
pounds are too, but you sure weigh way too many of them

>>76728122
>>76728171
>OH MY FUCKING SCIENCE, SOURCE!? DO YOU HAVE ANY HECKIN PROOF!?
My proof is that I can eat "processed" foods outside the US and weight just drops regardless. I think there's something in the food that doesn't get captured in the calorie counting process that's extremely calorically dense.

>>76729302
ꜱoybean oil is the main culprit in america

>>76729302
you have weight to drop?

we don't need a formal proof or anything, it would suffice to
>post body

>>76729310
True
>>76729317
The FDA allows a 20% discrepancy between the label and the recorded calories.
Processed foods are more bio available than unprocessed ones.
>2000 calories of raw nuts
>You only absorb 70% because of the fiber
>Net 1400 calories
>2000 calories of nut butter
>It's actually 2400 calories
>No fiber so you absorb everything
>1000 calorie gap between label and absorbed
Calories are a meme because we don't consider the absorption. Just how much you can heat up water if you burn it.

>>76729084
>vid
They look better than 99% of all dancing on the internet, even professional dancers like k-pop artists. The absolute state of modern dance.

>>76729331
Calories ARE the absorption - they are a representation of how many kilojoules we expect the human digestion process to get out of a given chemical or group of chemicals (macro).

It's like they simplified rocket science to two big buttons that say "up" and "down" and you're still fucking it up.

>>76729378
Even if I grant that, which I do not, the 20% discrepancy over long periods is a huge amount of weight gain.

>>76729392
so aim for 20% below total daily and have a fun cheat meal if you lose a few pounds? not that complicated, this is just cope

CICOtards be like
>I don't know exactly how much calories/gram this food is, but I will approximate
>I don't know exactly how much of the calories I ate I actually absorbed/pooped out so I will say 100%
>I don't know exactly how much calories I burned so I will approximate

and then say "IT'S EXACT SCIENCE"
also 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems which body isn't, tards
also pic related

>>76729407
Thermodynamics applies to all systems, not just closed. You shouldn't speak on it when even basic arithmetic apparently stumps you.

t. MSME

>>76729407
so you you're fat because of microbiota problems? need some of my shit to eat?

I warn you, it's not zero-calorie according to the bomb calorimeter

>>76729407
I’m tired of there being no rebuttals

>>76729452
>>76728149

>>76729452
The only rebuttal needed is
>post body

>>76729429
>he thinks 2 apples grown in completely different conditions both have same calories/gram
>has masters in mechanical engineering
yikes, I bet you think all those differential equations regarding thermodynamics in college were REALLY HARD and stuff
hows being underpayed cad modelling monkey working out to you?

>>76729506
lol pathetic

have fun being fat, dumb, AND poor

>>76729407
To this day I can’t respond properly and I’m a cico advocate

>>76729514
I earn more than you

>>76729516
even more pathetic, samefag

>>76729520
Imagine having to boast about a meaningless college (toilet) paper and barely understanding a 2nd law of thermo as a mechanical engineer making less than an average brogrammer, to anonymous strangers no less

>>76729517
wow you must make a whole lot of money to be able to say that without even knowing how much I make. you happen to be Elon Musk?

>>76729524
He's not the MSME, moron. I have also worked in software, it's not that hard. Didn't even need a degree for it, proven experience and results are what counts.

And when it comes to diet, you can judge that just with a glance at your body.

>>76729527
You had a simple layup on the "fat, dumb" part of your statement about me dude, you could have easily dunked on me. Meaning not only are you dumb enough not to see it, but also you're insecure about how much money you make trying to defend it with this kind of obvious fallacy, you're not the second richest person on the planet.

Want to post body to prove you're not fat as well?

>>76729524
>brogrammer
cico "works on my machine", lol

>>76729536
you are confirming I owned you with "fat, dumb" AND admitting that
>post body
is the end-all-be-all of arguments, despite you refusing to do it?

>>76729406
Cunt, I'm not the one with weight issues. My BMI is 23. I'm more talking about the normie public that doesn't know this discrepancy exists. Even if they perfectly hit their calories according to the label they're going to gain weight over time.
And that's assuming our base assumptions on how to count a calorie are correct.

>>76729407
>>I don't know exactly how much calories I burned so I will approximate
this is a big one
literally nobody has a fucking clue how many calories they burn in a day, putting "1 hour of gym 3-4 times a week" doesnt mean fuck all, it's not even an aproximation

>>76729593
they also don't know that 2000 isn't the magical calorie number for everyone. the solution is actually teaching them how things work, not throwing out a working system based on real physical laws

>>76729429
A calorie is defined as the potential energy in a given food, as measured by a bomb calorimeter.
A bomb calorimeter is used to measure potential energy by dehydrating food, grinding it into a powder, and burning it, then measuring a change in temperature in the device.
The human body obviously does not process energy in this manner.
Depending on a variety of factors in relation to the food (density, fibre content, macronutrient type etc), the body will expend a certain amount of calories processing the food for it's potential energy. Macronutrients such as fats have a very low "processing overhead", while proteins are relatively higher. This is known as the thermic effect of food, and is well researched and documented.
Obviously this shows that CICO is a flawed approximation.
If you take two identical individuals who have a TDEE of 2500 calories as estimated by CICO models, and feed one 2500 calories of butter per day, and the other 2500 calories of chicken breast, the chicken individual will lose weight, while the butter person will gain it.

>>76729637
2000 was an example you sperg. Assuming they calculate their BMR and then meticulously count calories based on labels they'd still potentially be upwards of 20% over. And that's assuming the totally competent FDA is actually checking and not just looking the other way. And again that's assuming the machines we use to count calories are accurate on all food types.

>>76729642
Thank you for saying what I'm trying to explain.

>>76729631
To lose weight, don't even worry about activity level (just use sedentary) and don't even think about adding exercise calories back into your diet.

The fact of the matter is your Basal Metabolic Rate is the vast amount of calories you burn (unless you're very, very fat). You burn those just for existing, even if you're in a coma - it varies very little between people, and is dead simple to calculate. Give me your weight and I can give you a number.

>>76729642
still no rebuttals to
>>76728149

>>76729657
No worries anon. I had this exact discussion last week with a friend so I just copy pasted my response to him.
Essentially though, while it is a flawed approximation at the extremes (ie, If I eat 200 calories a day under TDEE of McDonalds I will lose weight), for a normal person eating a reasonably balanced diet, it will at least as well as any other diet, probably even better as most diets are even further abstracted from the reality of bodily mechanics.

>>76729642
have you ever bothered to add up the calories from protein, fat, carbs, and alcohol on the label and seen if it matches the overall calorie amount? do you think they measured those macros in the bomb calorimeter? can you explain to me why fiber is listed under carbs but does not count towards the calorie count, despite burning in the calorimeter? just because you're retarded doesn't make cico wrong

>>76729664
not trying to provide rebuttal. See
>>76729669

>>76729672
Im not saying CICO is wrong retarded faggot. Im saying it's an imperfect and flawed approximation that still works in most situations except where people are majorly retarded

>>76729675
>not saying CICO is wrong
no, you're just trying to hide a ketoschizo argument behind it being "not quite right". saying how wrong it is is for you to samefag later. you're not as slick as you think

>>76729675
>Im not saying CICO is wrong
no, you're just trying to hide a ketoshizo argument behind it being "not quite right". saying it's wrong is what you'll samefag later. you're not as slick as you think

>>76729695
> trying to hide a ketoshizo argument
Ironically, the biggest criticism of CICO I have is it vastly underestimates the caloric effect on the body of fats, and it makes keto look ever more memeable.
But your lack of reading comprehension of my posts just indicates how much of a retarded thirdie you are.

>>76724237
>>76724604
>>76728560
>>76724216
Actual subhumans.

>>76729711
lol turns out he wasn't as slick as he thought

at least we all agree keto and anti-CICO are retarded, right?

>>76728115
I know of at least one autist who has done this

>>76728427
I think you're missing the point. Calories are real but how we measure them is retarded and so just saying cico isn't enough considering the fluctuation that can exist between foods that claim to have the same amount of calories.

eat less and you lose weight
i know it sounds crazy but it's true
CICO deniers can talk they want about shit that has a minor effect. eat less and you lose weight
it would be more helpful if you discussed practical ways to eat less

>>76729631
>literally nobody has a fucking clue how many calories they burn in a day
But you can approximate it closely given your weight, age, height, and what you do naturally.
Then with cardio, you can also figure it out based on how much cardio you do.

>>76729642
>If you take two identical individuals who have a TDEE of 2500 calories as estimated by CICO models, and feed one 2500 calories of butter per day, and the other 2500 calories of chicken breast, the chicken individual will lose weight,
Why are you using exactly 2500? If you're so confident that CICO is wrong, why not use 2400, for a definite yes and no to your question.

Oh that's because someone eating 2500 calories is going to gain wait for they burn 2400 calories per day and you need to look for miniscule balance differences in order to be "right".

By doing this you've proven CICO, not disproven it.

>>76724136 (OP)
basic thermodynamics debunked?

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgY43gpDP98OJZmtg1NEKyPR3hkLqdJ5Y&si=jPsg6ce6Brnep5LQ

CICO debunked

>>76724178
>Science dorks getting dunked on daily

Ragebait but whatever; I want to talk. The calorie tracking app is not hard. Using a scale for two weeks is not hard. And here's the crazy part: when you get enough protein the hunger is not that bad. It's so manageable. I even did science by being slow and doing 6 weeks -500 3 weeks maintenance. I still lost 30 lbs in 6 months. If you can't handle counting calories you deserve all the stalled progress and hours seething about conventional wisdom. I get it, counting is hard for you. But the people who give a shit about winning get to stand higher because they can walk over you, so thank you.

>>76729972
I think you're talking past people. Everyone agrees that eating less will make you lose weight. The question isn't whether calories are real or if thermo dynamics hold true. It's how accurately can you even count calories that actually get absorbed into the body.

>>76731154
You can't know how many you consumed or burned and a hundred calories of surplus a day is enough to gain 10 lbs in a year.

Counting calories is an eating disorder.

>>76729310
every shitty country on earth is shoving seed oils in everything and they're all getting fatter, america isn't special.

>>76731532
eating disorder is a meme term that is used against everything, however, I do agree with this
people can say all they want about all the diets roaming around, but constantly weighing your food and writing it down on a phone is an unhealthy type of obsession

>>76724237
I get your misunderstanding now
The starvation part (consuming less calories than your body uses) is only until your reach your goal weight. Of course it is not sustainable long term, you would die! :D
Once you reached your goal weight you eat as many calories as your body needs at that weight (roughly, on average), this way there is no starvation and you also don't get fat. Hope this helps! :)

>>76724136 (OP)
It's crazy how people would rather scour the internet for any scrap of information that supports their braindead belief that CICO can't be real, rather than simply eat less food and see if they lose weight or not

>>76728393
>If you believe in common fucking sense as well as real science then you would know that those calories are either burned or stored.
>But if you're retarded then you believe that somehow magically they disappear.

You shit them out. Your body is efficient at getting calories but if it can't for whatever reason digest what its eating its going to expel it. This is why I think that malabsorption is a problem. If you can't digest things it will just pass through your body.

>>76728196
true

>>76729302
this may be true. I think

>>76729310
may be correct. Is basedbean oil that much more easily absorbed by the gut than other oils? Does it potentially increase the ability of your gut to digest foods?

>>76727861
Look, I'm a CICO proponent, but it's absolutely not binary at all. You seem to totally ignore the concept that your digestive system doesn't necessarily extract EVERY calorie of energy from the food that passes through it, or the known phenomenon that some foods actually require more energy to be burned in order to properly digest them and extract their nutrients. Your hypothetical men eating X number of calories of either broccoli or twinkies will absorb different amounts of energy from each food as it passes through their digestive systems.

It's well-known that an ultra-processed food like a twinky (essentially a reformed lump of pre-chewed, unnaturally refined compounds such as pure cane sugar, pure seed oils) will be broken down and its energy released much faster than a non-processed wholefood like broccoli.

It's not binary, retard. Any calories that aren't burned or stored are shat out into a toilet. That's where they go.

>>76731532
obesity is an eating disorder. i know you find counting difficult, but it is not bad for your health, unlike being fat

>>76732471
Why do these anti-CICO threads always keep obsessing about shit? One of you tards must have a fecal fixation or something

>>76731526
yup! and during that year, while you gain almost a pound a month, you can post anti-CICO cope on 4chan to feel better. i guess some people prefer that to eating very slightly less

>>76731520
blue-sky fags on suicide watch
>the sky is blue though
>the sky is green
>the sky is orange sometimes actually
>okay but it's never green
>blue is a made-up human concept. just because we came up with electromagnetism a hundred years ago doesn't mean we can say the actual physical sky is some exact "wavelength" number
>the sky is blue because of Rayleigh scattering
>the sky doesn't exist, it's the firmament above the flat earth
>okay, argue about minor bullshit but the sky is definitely real and reliably blue. we even understand when it is and isn't and why
>you're talking past people. everyone agrees the sky is blue. the question isn't whether blue is real or Rayleigh scattering is true. it's how accurately can you even measure its wavelength

would you say that last anon is pro- or anti-blue? bad faith or useful idiot?

>>76724136 (OP)
Damn, if this literalwhotuber says so, I totally believe it!

>>76732566
Sure, you can sometimes fail to absorb calories and shit them out. You can't create them from nothing though. So that makes losing weight pretty uncomplicated, just eat less calories than you burn, and if you are maintaining or gaining weight it means you aren't doing that. Your pendantry feeds the trolls and morons who seem to think it's magic.

>>76733087
>blue-sky fags on suicide watch
I mean, the first Ice Age will always have a special place in my heart, but the studio died for a reason

>>76733029
>their arguments are all shit
lol

>>76732975
>pendantry
umm actually it's "pedantry"

t. pedant

>>76732092
I'd much rather be a fatass than be some hungry faggot doing math all day. Real men follow CICO all right - Chuds In, Cucks Out.

>>76732975
>calling someone fatty
>counts calories (a weight loss method whose purpose is to fit in slop because you can't bring yourself to stop consuming it)
just eat good food and you won't need to care about how heavy your food is

>>76733036
All this cope and deflection. I don't have weight issues. But you can't say CICO when it's really CI(guesstimate on how bio available the calories in the food are with 30% allowed variance on labels)CO(guesstimate on how much you actually burn)

>>76733087
That's such a long strawman.

Cicofags have a humiliation fetish, how many more threads until you get sick of being btfo

>>76728208
OH NO NO NO NO NO NO
BUT MY CI AND CO!!
WHY AM I DYING DESPITE EATING 20 THOUSAND CALORIES AIEEEEEEEE

>>76733121
Yeah, again I agree that you can't magic extra calories out of a diet that's below your daily energy expenditure, but it's also important not to reduce the CICO concept to the point of being factually inaccurate because then that will actually feed the lardo troll CICO-deniers even more.

To be clear, again, any fatsos reading this: for the purpose of losing weight, CICO is extremely effective and very very simple - just consistently eat 10-20% LESS than your estimated total daily energy expenditure and you will begin losing weight almost immediately. It's almost irrelevant what you choose to eat, but the more of your diet comes from fresh wholefoods, the more you can actually eat, since you're less likely to absorb 100% of the energy in those foods during digestion.

>>76733305
redardless of if you track or not, the body keeps count - you agree or do you believe in ketoschiz nonsense? a minimal-slop diet is best but if your choices are obesity or counting calories, it's a pretty easy one

>>76733390
Newtonian physics is a "guestimate" compared to relativity but it got us to space.

>>76733390
i think the constant quibbling about exactitude is the cope and deflection, but you can prove me wrong if you
>post body

>>76733395
ooh he's seething now

>>76733921
>>76733593
He sure is, literal REEEEEEING

>>76733392
too btfo to actually engage with a real argument?

>>76733924
>Strawman
>Real argument
Ok kid

>>76733913
What's the variability between Newtonian physics and reality you little retard? If physics was wrong by +-30% we would throw that shit in the trash.