>>76575794
Whats the point?
2010? Its old news and also we have much better proof that CICO works
Just look at glp1 and how effective it is

>>76575801
no one disputes the energy balance sheet, the problem is that cicotards ignore physiology and motivation or the hormonal effects of various foods.

>>76575817
>physiology
>hormonal effects
They don't ignore them, they just put low value on them which makes sense, they dont significantly impact the outcome too much

I don't think anyone would put low value on motivation/willpower however

>>76575817
>eat less
>lose weight

>cicotards are ignoring physiology
Imagine being such a tranny unironically, like an actual tranny and having such shit hormones that you don't drink your 2 gallon Mountain Cougar Thunder™ and your 18 double cheeseburgers for a single day and your metabolism stops entirely and you stay the same weight lmao.

Bro put the doughnuts down.
CICO has always recommended eating less+more exercise, which bypasses any physiological concerns you could pose.
You can't gain weight if the body keeps moving.

strict calorie counting does regulate weight in the short-term, but not in the long-term.
Because in the long-term your hormones will dictate how much fat your body wants to hold onto.
The body uses fat tissue to store toxins, so extreme weightloss causes you to concentrate those toxins, which causes onset of autoimmune diseases, and loss of mental health. This is why fatties always regain the weight if they tried losing it without detoxing through good diet.

There are many studies showing toxins levels in the blood spiking to extreme levels after rapid weightloss, which causes the people to feel like absolute shit and binge eat again.

There are many different toxins that are stored in fat tissue like vitamin A, omega 6, glyphosphate, microplastics, heavy metals, etc. And each toxins requires a different detox strategy, although eating a healthy diet goes a long way.

I guarantee this professor in the meme image regained the weight after he stopped using willpower to restrict his caloric intake.

>>76575918
You guarantee it, huh? Well, feel free to back up that claim with some sources.

>>76575918
>toxins become concentrated in the fat cells and that makes you eat more, unless you follow a specific detox regimen to get rid of them
is that the gist of it? do you have any evidence of this?

>>76575990
Ignore him. He's been spamming this in multiple threads. There's no evidence for it because it's not true.

>>76575817
doesn't matter as long as you eat less
you can always undereat and beat out any hormonal effects from food
>>76575918
yes we know, the body gets stressed after losing a bunch of weight, that's why keeping the weight off for 6-12 months is the hardest and most important phase
once you do that then your body calms down and you have won
rest of this post is schizo nonsense though

>>76576327
>for 6-12 months is the hardest and most important phase
>once you do that then your body calms down and you have won
lmao if you were obese your body created a bunch of extra fat cells and every fat cell produces hunger signals. ex fatties will be much hungrier than normal people for decades

>>76576339
post proof, you won't
having extra adipocytes does not itself make you more hungry

>>76575794
Wasn't he drinking protein shakes and eating normal food at home to "not show bad example" to his children?

just google "glyphosphate concentration in blood after rapid weightloss"
this will lead down to a rabbit hole of related studies

>There's no evidence for it because it's not true.
It is self-evidently true.
What happens when the toxin storage site reduces in volume? The concentration of toxins increases.
There are also studies on how toxins are released in the blood during periods of acute stress.

You guys are the ignorant ones, and it is on you to followup with the research in this area.


>>76576327
>the body gets stressed after losing a bunch of weight, that's why keeping the weight off for 6-12 months is the hardest and most important phase
Thats a big claim, and doesn't even have a logical mechanism for why that would be the case. We all know that 90% of fatties regain the weight back.

>>76576349
>having extra adipocytes does not itself make you more hungry
It does make you more fat.

>>76575794
I lost 20lbs by focusing solely on calories and protein. I didn't eat a lot of junk food but I ate tons of protein shakes/bars, low-carb wraps Quest chips, and other stuff along with boneless skinless chicken breast, tuna, tons of veggies etc.

I dropped 1lb/week for like 3 solid months but it was so fucking miserable, and then I couldn't hold on to the weight loss.

About a year ago my wife and I switched to almost entirely ancestral eating: meat on the bone with skin, organs, sprouted/fermented foods, local fruits and veggies. Started to feel AMAZING. Lost weight and have kept it off easily.

More importantly, I don't feel deprived, I've got tons of energy, libido, good sleeps etc.

This is strictly just me but my experience has been that food quality >>> food quantity for long-term health and physique.

>>76575794
>Twinkies, Doritos, and sugary snacks
>good
no you just have the taste buds of a 5 year old

>>76576421
>It does make you more fat.
Other way around

>Thats a big claim
>Physiology of Weight Regain after Weight Loss: Latest Insights
>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13679-025-00619-x
>It has been reported that persons with obesity have a significantly higher percentage of peripheral CD7+ monocytes than lean individuals [18]. The percentage of circulating CD7+ monocytes is negatively associated with the degree of weight regain 6 months after weight loss
>Interestingly, weight regain could be limited by treating mice with the receptor tyrosine kinase FLT3, a bone marrow factor involved in hematopoietic development, which increased the number of active CD7+ cells [17]. It shows that manipulating the immune system in the proper way could limit the risk of weight regain.
>However, after weight loss individuals who subsequently regained weight had higher peak neurotensin responses after a mixed meal than individuals who continued to lose some weight over the 1-year weight maintenance period [43].
Nothing to do with adipocytes themselves

>Lost 27 pounds
Twenty-seven pounds of what?

>>76576518
>It shows that manipulating the immune system in the proper way could limit the risk of weight regain.
You realize this supports my claims right?
The majority of the work done by the immune system is dealing with toxins, not dealing with bacteria.
After rapid weight gain there is increased toxicity in the blood, which is easily confirmed by a few minutes of googling. So science has to find a way to shut off the regular functioning of the immune system in order to prevent former fatties from regaining the weight.

Anyways theres drugs like ozempic if you want to go the dangerous route of just fuck your shit up.

>>76576562
>After rapid weight gain
*rapid weight loss

>>76576562
Burden of proof is on you to demonstrate there are more toxins
Searching "glyphosphate concentration in blood after rapid weightloss" has no hits

>>76575794
CICO cultists be like
>mmmh low cal snacks? sign me in

>>76576571
try harder because its very easy to find

>>76576577
I posted my studies anon, where's yours? If they're so easy to find surely you could spoonfeed me?

>>76576572
What's your first language?

>>76575817
>Nooooooooo I can't control myself when close to sugary stuff that's why you're a retard
Ok ketotard

>cicopers once again proving they're nutritionally blind

>>76575817
>nooo I have a special physiologi and eating less doesn't work for me!!!

CICOtrannies are too dumb to understand the difference between losing weight and losing body fat.

>>76575817
>cicotards ignore physiology and motivation or the hormonal effects of various foods.
No, you do. No one capable of adhering to caloric restriction wastes it all on chips and mountain dew. 1600 calories of that and you want more in four hours, no shit, so we eat less calorie dense food and usually avoid "empty" calories like carbonated sugar water.

>toxins make you fat
>the immune system deals with toxins
Pseudoscientific bullshit. Name non-biogenic toxins that are dealt with by the immune system instead of the liver and kidneys, or go suck RFK's cock.

>cicultists picking one data point among many yet again
Might as well say he lost the weight cos the sun rose every day

>>76579070
If not caloric deficit, then what causes weight loss?

>>76579040
cico is shit. fucks up your hormones and food. get headaches if you go 100 calories too deep in the cut. loss of libido. depression. and for what. so you can look like you survived auschwitz. that's not the body anyone wants. if you're a woman maybe. but men want muscle. and you got a be big to get big. don't restrict the calories. just workout harder. if you're not getting the results you want. you're just not working hard enough.

>>76575794
the problem is that when blood sugar spikes then dips, people want another sugary snack and aren't adding up all the numbers.

also i wonder if he was drinking all water or washing it down with diet coke

>>76579113
the fuck do you think cico means? every diet that works is cico.

>>76579083
Your question is fatphobic. Please refrain.

>>76575794
This has no value at the societal level. It’s too easy to overeat that kind of food, so telling people they just need to eat “less” (without changing their diet in ways that make that easier to achieve) is totally unhelpful.

>>76579123
Calorie deficit is the proximate cause of weight loss for all diets that cause weight loss. However, some diets make it easier to get into a calorie deficit.

Try getting in a deficit eating only French fries and cola. Zero protein. Zero fiber. It’s possible, but will make you feel horrible.

Eating a healthier diet with more fiber, more protein, less processed foods may be psychologically hard for some larders at first. But if they just take the few weeks to get used to it they will be able to stay leaner with ease the rest of their life.

>>76579123
Yes anon, that's why cico is not a fucking diet, it's just keeping score.
It's like asking why children grow bigger, the cicotard response is "oh that's because they took in more calories than they put out", which is a completely useless statement like all cicotardism.
It's the belief that all calories are the same and completely ignores their effects on the body.
Once you start to acknowledge that there is more than just the total energy expenditure or energy deficit and that what you eat can affect you then you are admitting that there is more than just cico and you are no longer a cicotard.

>>76579170
Nobody is telling you to actually eat junk food while on a cut. The "losing weight eating junk" is only used as an argument that for soling weight, it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you're in a deficit. That eating a clean diet with plenty of protein will lead to less muscle loss and feeling less like a walking corpse is assumed to be self-evident. Stop strawmanning.

>>76579123
you're arguing in bad faith. cico reduces or increased overall mass. which is bullshit. you want to either cut fat or build muscle. which you will only do that by exercising more.
no that doesn't disprove the concept of cico. it's disproven by pointing out that protein isn't as readily converted to energy. 10-20% less. so if I did cico and ate an only protein diet 3000 daily caloric intake would only really convert to 2700 or 2400 calories. but cico said I consumed 3k.
then toss in the effects fluctuating hormones etc it be ones very complicated and a simplistic answer like cico becomes a drooling retard thought.

>>76579180
no, arguing in bad faith is saying that cico causes "fucked up hormones, headaches, loss of libido, depression and makes you look like you survived auschwitz."

>>76579196
it is almost guaranteed to cause all of those things listed. because there really is some 'correct' or optimum combination of fat sugars and proteins. and cico ignores all of that.

Anti-CICOs always want to talk shit about hormones and how different macros are processed, like any of that disproves it.

You should be getting a balanced diet that suits your body's function and your goals, and that exists wholly outside of CICO. It's not CICO's fault if you eat from a garbage can outside of Arby's. Of course eating like shit is going to make you feel like shit.

And then, once you have your macros and your micros accounted for, you may apply CICO as a conceptual guideline, not a fucking rule carved in the firmament of the earth, to help you achieve loss, maintenence, or gains, per your wishes.

>>76579171
it seems to me that you are arguing against a straw man. i have never seen anybody say that calories is the only thing you need to be healthy, everybody knows that you also need a balanced diet to meet all your nutritional needs. of course, some ways of reduing the calorie intake are easier than others, nobody expects to be healthy by eating, for example, 1000 calories worth of white sugar every day and nothing else. but if you did that, you would lose weight, and that's all that "cicotards" say.

>>76579218
Cico is literally just a balance sheet that's the point. it is not a diet.

>>76575918
>I guarantee this doctor gained weight when he started eating more calories again
No shit, Sherlock. I lost 75lbs almost a decade ago by eating less. I didn't starting eating more once I lost the weight, I continued eating at the reduced amount. I didn't gain the weight back. A diet isn't a transient event, it is the term for "what you eat." If you change your diet, your weight changes.

>>76575918
Wrong, fatcel cope.

>>76579218
Anti-CICO cucks literally deny the laws of physics. The best way to deal with them is laughter and mockery.

>((American Studies))

I could also drink 20 'sugar' cokes a day with that pyramid logic.
Great funded study with journals and research.
Get the fuck out with meme JPGs

>>76579141
>please refrain

how about (you) rephrase, ESL?

>>76580330
You absolutely could, and you'd feel like dogshit the whole time and give up two weeks in, max. CICO works best when paired with common fucking sense about food choices.