CICO is like the nigger word to fat people

>>76572223
I actually just envisioned the word "nigger" in bright red arial font, italicized, rotated it around 720 degrees and exploded it in my mind.
And CICO is king. You're gay and retarded if you think otherwise.

>>76572224
>>76572229
Debating with a CICOtard is pointless because they literally can't visualize your arguments, kek.

>be CICOtard
>eat a milligram of Uranium-235
>gain over 5 pounds
CICOtards claim to understand science but fail at understanding basic principles such as the laws of conservation of mass and conversion of energy

>>76572238
visualize this, faggot *unzips dick*

I lost weight by not eating and doing a lot of cardio. How do anti CICO fags explain that?

>>76572224
This. Fuck biggers. CICO is law.

>>76572275
This has to be bait... is uranium a carb? a type of fat perhaps? are proteins made of uranium?
Our bodies have the biochemical machinery that enables them to only harvest energy from certain molecules, not all of them. Else we would be able to digest fiber but guess what? only our gut microbiome can do that for us. We don't have a fission reactor in our intestines to split atoms.

>>76572301
So you admit that nutrition and weight loss/gain is, in fact, more complicated than CICO. I accept your concession.

>>76572310
No because the mistake everyone makes is that they think CICO counts for everything that goes inside your mouth, when in reality it's the calories that are absorbed and your metabolism gets access to.
It's calories IN your metabolism, not calories IN your stomach.

>>76572223
i know you wish there was a magic "extra" thing you could eat to lose weight, fatass... but eating more is the not the path to weighing less. eat less, move more.

>>76572223
>lardass with so much fat bloating his brain he can't even understand why people still parrot it
You seem slow, so I'll spell it out for you. The basic "eat less move more" advice that literally always works for every human without a thyroid disorder is easily summed up by CICO - "eat less (CI)" and "move more (CO)." When fatasses like you complain they can't lose weight, it's obvious to normal people they are overestimating their CO and underestimating their CI, to the point research studies reliably prove it.

>>76572347
lol this tard aint gonna respond

>>76572310
>relativistic equations of motion simplify to newtonian mechanics when c >> v
>SO YOU SAY NEWTONIAN MECHANICS DON'T WORK?!?
Complicated things are often simplified by more core, fundamental ideas which govern the broad strokes of the result. calorie =/= Calorie btw, nice conflation though.

>>76572355
I always end with the conclusion that the hate/disbelief for CICO is all about people underestimating the CI part. They either miscalculate what they eat or lie to themselves with the portions. This is why I try to not eat processed foods because labels sometimes lie. I don't have that problem when I grab an apple, cook chicken or decide to season with 1 table spoon of oil.

>>76572223
you are correct; i say calories in/calories out and have aphantasia. another thing i have that you lack is abs. pick your poison, fatass.

>>76572223
Daily reminder that the only kind of people upset with Calorie counting are those with excess of weight. If you are lean but you don't understand CICO you go on with your life without giving a fuck, unlike someone that makes a thread like this.

>>76572223
Oh no, diet scammers are going to be pissed now that people are understanding eat less move more and you lose weight. Aaaarrrgggg my liver and carrot pills tho dude.

I can envision a full orchard spelling CICO, fatass/lankie

Saying CICO is like saying "win the game by scoring more points than the other team" it's technically true but doesn't meaningfully help. Also, the human body is not a bomb calorimeter

>>76572456
Cope hahaha
>I need to lose weight
>Eat less and move more
>AAAAAHHHHH NO
>Loses the "Game"

>>76572456
>win the game by scoring more points than the other team
>the human body is not a bomb calorimeter

You are making analogies out of a fact and then you proceed to attack the analogies. That is not going to take you closer to the truth.

The human body is not counting calories, it just receives the fuel and if it gets more than it needs then it goes to storage. Now if there only was a way to calculate how much we need so we don't overfeed it...

>>76572293
You ate less than your TDEE.

Anti CICO piggies need to imagine themselves putting down the fork and going for a walk

>>76572224
fpbp

>>76572286
Hahaha

>>76572224
kek

If cico didn't work why does it work?

>>76572456
No one is forcing calories into your mouth.

What's the alternative to CICO? I know the model is simplified, but under the variables and caveats it's unquestionably true. Don't eat, lose weight. How can it be any other explanation?

>>76573271
>What's the alternative to CICO?
Keto/Carnivore/Vegan/this weeks grift to sell you shit

File: close-senior-man-fat-stom(...).jpg (17 KB, 390x280)

17 KB JPG

>>76572223
You can't cheat the laws of thermodynamics, fatty.

>>76572286
why do you have a zipper on your dick?

CICO IS GAY AS FUCK BUT BASICALLY WORKS
just eat ONE MEAL A DAY AT DINNER
fast all day then REFEED WITH BOILED POTATOES AND CHICKEN, stuff your face NO/LOW FAT
its literally IMPOSSIBLE to stay fat doing that
especially when you WALK ALL FUCKING DAY which shreds bodyfat off of your fat body you will he MINDFUCKED how fast it is

>>76573442
>no don't do CICO
>do CICO but it's worse and gives you an eating disorder

>>76573476
COUNTING CALORIES IS GAY LIKE YOUR DAD
JUST EAT LOW CALORIE, HIGH VOLUME, LOW FAT

>>76573271
>if you dont eat mass you lose mass
genius
>>76572629
> if it gets more than it needs then it goes to storage
braindead retarded
>Now if there only was a way to calculate how much we need so we don't overfeed it.
if only (there isnt)

>drink 1lb of water
>gain 1lb despite imbibing zero calories
Uhhh CICOsissies?

>>76573484
>no don't learn the nuances of nutrition and become better informed
>just develop an eating disorder instead
>actually no just do something else

>>76573573
If you're not pissing you should get checked for kindey failure

>>76573621
you are 100% fat lmao

Most people who support CICO are skinny
Most people who don't are fat
Simple as

>>76573887
true

>>76572223
Its literally true by the laws of physics.

Theres really only 2 nuances that need to be understood, but neither conflict with CICO.
1. You need to eat enough protein or else you'll burn muscle along with fat
2. Hormones play a big influence, but thats just adjusting the calories out and what the calories in do.

>>76573948
big true
thats why maintaining weight with low fat, high carb and protein is the easiest thing in the world
but if one wants to lose bodyfat, just eat less and do low intensity stuff like walking, swiming and biking, low intensity lifting aswell

>>76572223
post this on reddit or something, u think there exists a fitizen in year 2025 that doesnt know its ragebait? anyways, i fell for it again

So if you say cico is not true (it’s crossed out) then you’re a retard?
I agree

>>76573970
Some saturated fats are needed, that's literally what test is made from. Obviously not a lot and from healthy sources though.

>>76574003
if you have bodyfat, your body makes all the cholesterol you need
once you are lean or even underweight yes you will need dietary fat or an insane amount of carbs and protein to make it

>eat 500 calories of meat
>burn 30% merely digesting it
>use it not just for energy, but body repair

>eat 500 calories of trans colored candy
>turn dumb, fat and easily irritated by facts

SAME THING 500 CALORIES IS 500 CALORIES REEEEEEE

>>76572223
just weigh food and take the time to calorie count for a few months fat fucks have the issue of being lazy and always eating different food which makes them have to research the macros again. Not my problem let them get 6hunna

Why is this schizo still not banned on sight?

>>76574637
CICO cultists just refuse to engage with this point

>>76574637
>burn 30% merely digesting it
definitely not
half of that would be generous for lean meat

>>76572223
these discussions are fucking retarded. it's all so tiresome.
1. a calorie is a unit of measurement. saying CICO works is the equivalent of saying
>if something has less mass, it weighs less!!!
no shit. the people who criticize CICO aren't saying that eating less is not effective for body fat reduction, what they are saying is that the calorie is a pretty shitty unit of measurement and it can't be relied on to give the sort of accurate feedback that people need to stay within a deficit, because food packaging can overestimate how much energy any given piece of food has, and of course the body doesn't absorb the entirety of everything you consume because our bodies are not furnaces that can just reduce food energy to ash. it gets absorbed to some extent and then excreted. just these two variables are enough to conclude that CICO isn't a foolproof plan, that is to say
>obsessing over your calorie consumption ain't it, senpai
yes, reducing food energy intake is important, obviously. I reiterate, you can't really measure food energy well with the calorie, and that's about it.
2. the other thing is that
>something something hormones are important in fat loss
and that's basically true. your body regulates fat production and retention, muscle synthesis, a bunch of other things with hormonal reactions that are outside of your control. you can't will yourself thin if your hormones are out of whack, and so the point is simply that you should probably get your hormones in order so as to promote fat loss, and of course you can do this over a long period of time by changing your diet and lifestyle.

all this being said, the general advice of "eat less, move more" still applies whether you agree that hormones are important or not, whether you think CICO is useful or not.

>>76574861
>you can't really measure food energy well with the calorie
you can, though. is it perfect? not, like every other measure, it has a margin of error. however, it has a much lower margin of error than any other method.

>>76574900
ok so now we have to argue about whether or not the influence of hormones is more important than counting calories, and that's an equally retarded conversation. what's better, to have a diet filled with an assortment of processed trash and "bad foods" but that is tightly measured so as to maintain a deficit as best as one can, or an unrestricted diet that is composed of clean and organic foods? there are arguments to make on both sides, but if you ask me it makes more sense to just eat as clean as possible and quit obsessing over calories so you can have a twinkie without guilt. in short, hormones are more important than whether or not you've stayed within the boundaries of what some online calculator told you, and counting calories does nothing to address one's hormonal profile, but rather facilitates an attitude of adherence and piety as long as the arbitrary numeric value is within an acceptable range.

>>76574910
the idea that eating "clean and organic foods" somehow makes you lose weight is ridiculous. you couldn't even define what that means if you were pressed about it. the whole talk about hormones and how the body processes the food is plainly nonsense.

you are not completely wrong, thought, but what you are doing here is effectively what is called the theory of palatability: the reason so many people tend to overeat, is because extremely palatable food has become very accessible. it is very easy to eat too many calories of pizza, even when your body is telling you that you are full, you can still go for one more slice. but eating too many calories of broccoli and lean meat? fuck, you will be tired to it after 3 bites, you will not eat more than you strictly need.

so sure, if you want to limit yourself to low palatability foods for the rest of your life, that's a great way to keep your weight in control. if you want to be able to occasionally enjoy foods that you actually like, there is no alternative to CICO.

>>76574959
you're retarded, that is my entire rebuttal. have a nice day.

>>76574964
i am right, and that's what matters in the end.

>>76574861
None of that matters, all outcome data confirms that CICO works with anyone if you just use our normal calorie counting measurements and standard accepted bmr calculators
These minute difference of hormones or whatever the fuck is just a cope, it accounts to barely anything

File: 1548360772019.jpg (654 KB, 1024x766)

654 KB JPG

>>76574728
Uhh wrong. Book a tour at the meat science lab to get some education, brat!

>>76572286
Ouch!

>>76574637
>>76574713
yea obviously a calorie is not a calorie
eating 2000kcal from KFC and eating 2000kcal from potatoes and chicken will NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS PRODUCE THE SAME RESULT

>>76573285
That’s still cico at the end of the day. You can’t go on keto, eat 110% of your calorie needs and still magically lose weight.