Why are women unable to believe that weight loss is as simple as calories in < calories out? Why do they always have to do mental gymnastics to disprove this to themselves?
>>75726035Doesn't feel right is all
>>75726035>weight loss>calories in < calories outmidwit dieting, smart people only focus on body composition while tracking their macros, micros AND non-essential bioactivities.
>>75726059Tracking macros is the same as tracking calories but with a funny hat on
>>75726062Except it's really not, because by CICO "logic" picrel is actually a "complete" dailty meal.>protip: u actually die if u eat nothing else.
>>75726035because it's not that simple? The vast majority of calories burned by your body in a day are from involuntary processes. The human body can slow down the rate of metabolism when it detects a large number of depleted fat cells, reducing the amount of calories required, and making you feel like shit all the time. So yeah, it's still cico, but that's an oversimplification that ignores that some people will have their body actively fighting against them and making their life miserable to get them to regain the weight. This is why people who get liposuction are far less likely to regain weight than people who lose through diet and exercise.
>>75726035Are these women in the room right now?
>>75726063Nobody is that autistic to think thats a complete meal because it satisfies calories holy shit which sanitarium did you ran away from anon
>>75726035I'm eating a PSMF and CICO is barely applying to me because at best I can store 1/4th of the calories in protein as fat if I just sit around all day and more realistically only around 1/50th of the calories. I can crush 300g of protein a day and it'll be almost as effective as fasting
>>75726078>Nobody is that autistic to think thats a complete meal because it satisfies caloriesSo you're finally admitting that "hurr durr calories in, calories out" isn't literally the FINAL SOLUTION to nutrition?As an omnivore anti-CICO Chad, thanks.
>>75726078nice moving the goalpost attempt kike
>>75726065this is the kind of thing I'm talking about btwhttps://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?unlocked_article_code=1.pk4.KtnY.DwGPNVt6hn2D&smid=url-share
>>75726089>>75726091NTA but please knock off the anti-semitism. It's wrong.
>>75726089Rent free bro. I dont even know who youre talking about. Take it ez.Also thats my first post on this thread.
>>75726094Shalom Rabbi! Did you know the bagel, lox, and cream cheese provides a balanced source of fat, protein, and carbohydrates? I hope you are enjoying the high Boron content of Tel Aviv soil, proven to treat and prevent arthritis.
>>75726104this is not new or exciting, it's lame and pathetic
>>75726063Imbecile. Understand the theories you're trying to disprove before speaking.
I just kept denying the facts but I finally accepted that most women are just really stupid and delirious.
>>75726035>Why are women unable to believe that weight loss is as simple as calories in < calories out?Because it isn't that simple.
>>75726117Am I missing something about CICO or its "theory" literally just "CALORIES"?
It's not about weight loss but about fat loss. There are ways to minimize lean mass loss when losing weight.
>>75726063I think this is a bad faith argument, since you're trying to invalidate his argument by taking it to its absolute logical extreme. This is like how people who argue for negative utilitarianism, which is the idea that society should attempt to minimize pain rather than maximize happiness, have to deal with the argument of the "benevolent planet exploder". That in a negative utilitarian society the ideal ruler is someone who painlessly wipes out all life on Earth, and a planet without life is negative utilitarian utopia, since no life means no suffering. But no negative utilitarian is seriously arguing that, it's a ridiculous and absurd counter argument.Similarly you've taken CICO to a ridiculous extreme no one would actually argue, instead of taking OP's argument at face value. Nobody who argues "weight loss is as simple as calories in < calories out" as OP put it, would also say that nutrition doesn't matter at all.
>>75726092was your stupid article supposed to disprove anthing?
Because there was an experiment where the food women eat was strictly controlled and fatties on 1500 calories per day (way less than what they eat bofore) still managed to gain weight.
>>75726188Corner cases are literally how you disprove various philosophical theories.With that being said, CICO is an extremely helpful framework, but obviously macros play a large part and micros play a small part in achieving a healthy physique.Also, since I'm a philosophy sperg, any sort of utilitarianism based on agent preference satisfaction, which is the pleasure/pain duality, is fundamentally flawed because objective wellbeing should be the measure for any utilitarianism theories. They still fail in many other respects, for reasons I won't get into here, but the traditional economics though of maximizing preference satisfaction can easily be demonstrated as retarded by heroin addicts and alcoholics. Their preference satisfaction utility curves will put great emphasis on their substance of addiction, but obviously that's not actually helping them or society. There are various objective forms of wellbeing that are a better metric.
>>75726092Nice read. This makes me hate the parents of fat kids even more, which I didn't think was remotely possible. I think Ray Pete's method to speed up your metabolism is effective. I know family members who used his methods to increase their calorie consumption while also increasing their metabolism, resulting in weight loss even eating 2x the calories (800 - > 1600)As a small fat myself, 6foot3 200 LBS, I hope I can take increasing my metabolism more seriously.
>>75726063This is not at all what anybody who advocates calorie counting is talking about though bad faith faggot. I can make retarded arguments like you are about macros not being the end all be all too. For example, you can eat the right portions of white bread, chicken and butter and meet your daily macros, you’re still missing a ton of essential micros and you’re gonna get scurvy and other diseases caused by nutrient deficiency. But of course nobody but the most deranged mental ward-bound psycho is advocating that. Instead of arguing in bad faith how about you shut the fuck up and lurk moar.
>>75726065>>75728134If I threw you faggots in the woods for a month with nothing but a blanket and a knife you would lose weight. If I locked you in a cell and gave you only 1000 calories a day you would lose weight. The world does not want people like you. You’re only fooling yourself.
