>Dude CICO is settled science it's the only way to lose weight nothing else matters>All the bodybuilders swear by CICO bro>"Okay guys so we're going to cut using CICO, with this math it will take me exactly 4 months to reach my goal weight">"Oops I didn't reach my goal weight, not because CICO doesn't work, but because....????">"Lets just CICO for 2 more months!"How many times does this have to happen?
Who's this obese midget and why are you posting him
CICO works. A calorie of energy is equivalent to some mass quantity of protein carbohydrate lipid or alcohol. Your body derives useful energy from the mass (calories) you consume to function and repair itself, and stores the excess mass (calories) as fat. Your body cannot magically increase in mass without you increasing the rate of intake of mass (calories) to a level that is greater than its mass (calorie) expenditure.
Is this the one who fucked the ladyboy? All heckin' science-based fitness youtubers literally look the same to me
>>76759973crazy how "le science" has one shot midwitslet me rephrase your statement in a way that makes it much more apparent how retarded you sound>Your body is a closed thermodynamic system bro, if we explode chickens inside of a pressure chamber and measure the heat the explosion causes then we can tell how much food you need to eat to gain / lose weight bro>That's totally how the human body works
>>76759987So you're technically saying a fatass can be starved for one week straight and not lose a single kilogram because his body conjures energy out of thin air by using mhee-ehta-h'bolism spells ?
>>76759958CICO is retarded because you can actually literally burn poo which means all the energy that went in your mouth wasn't converted to energy and body fat.
>>76760038Flammability of poop has more to do with the bacteria recycling the waste and producing gases than the poop itself
>>76760012>you don't believe my retarded argument?>well clearly you must believe in (retarded strawman no one made)
>>76759958
>>76760045CICO deniers will never give you any alternative because there's none
>>76760070There is actually, and you've been told it hundreds of times. You just pretend it doesn't exist.>Calories are next to meaningless, they only serve as a general guideline as to how much food you're consuming>A calorie is not a calorie>High quality protein from meat is worth more in your body and promotes muscle growth and fat loss>Meanwhile junk food (carbs, sugar, seed oils) promote muscle degradation and lipogenesis>By this logic you can orient yourself towards a more nuanced dieting perspective, where something like donuts are 2x as fattening as chicken thighs, even with the same amount of calories (2x number is made up)"In groups of four, men and women in their 40s and 50s, some of them lean and some overweight, overate for 30 d by 1000 kcal/d (4186 kJ/d) more than they needed to maintain weight. On an average dietary mixture for Americans they gained a mean of 2.68 kg, and on a diet high in carbohydrate (60 per cent of energy) they gained 2.73 kg. However, on a diet high in protein and fat (70 per cent of energy), they gained significantly less, 1.75 kg. On all three diets the subjects should have gained 5 kg, if adipose tissue has an energy density of 6 kcal/g, and had there been no adaptation. There was adaptation, as evidenced by an average 7 per cent increase in thermogenesis, which was measured by 24-h direct and indirect calorimetry. Energy balances were calculated from: bomb calorimeter values for food and body waste; change in fuel stores from body composition measured by densitometry; and daily expenditure estimated from the net food intake needed to maintain body weight during a 30-d control period."
>>76760085Everything you've mentioned is literally just cico
>>76760091>>Calories are next to meaningless
>>76760095>It's cico but we dont calculate expenditure from activity
>>76760103> On an average dietary mixture for Americans they gained a mean of 2.68 kg, and on a diet high in carbohydrate (60 per cent of energy) they gained 2.73 kg. However, on a diet high in protein and fat (70 per cent of energy), they gained significantly less, 1.75 kg
>>76760109>People who eat more gain more wieghtCICO = BTFO
>>76759973>Your body derives useful energy from the mass (calories) you consume>caloriesFact: The human body is not a heat engine.
>>76759958CICO works well as an upper limit; you cannot possibly store 1000 calories worth of fat on your body while consuming less than 1000 calories. Doesn't matter what you eat or what your hormones or genetics are, unless you're a plant.As a lower limit it's more dubious. You can eat 1000 calories worth of sawdust without filling one fat cell. If some calories that you eat count more than others CICO isn't a good heuristic.But in practice everyone I've seen who hates CICO is a fatass trying to convince me that he isn't overeating. Not a skinny guy who fails to gain wait due to eating celery or whatever.And I've never heard a CICO person say that just because a high deficit works 100% of the time that makes it a good diet. The guy who ate nothing but Twinkies and chips lost weight but he didn't say it was a good way to live. No one is recommending that fat people use that as a diet plan.
>>76760109>However, on a diet high in protein and fat (70 per cent of energy)So, 35% protein and 35% fat, plus 30% carbohydrates to round it to 100%. I assume the other diets were 33% protein/fat/carb right? So this research says replacing 3-6% of your carb intake with protein and fat will reduce your weight gain by 40%? I don't believe it and neither should you. Can you even post a source or am I just training a fucking Palantir bot
>>76760241The other diets were 55-60% carbs. That diet reduced carbs down to 30%. So half the carbs as the baseline diets, and they gained ~60% as much weight.
>>76760085Everyone says CICO and eat a good diet. You aren't presenting anything new. Nothing you are saying changes anything. If you want to lose weight eat less you stupid fat piece of shit.
>>76760267>eat a good dietCICO is worthless if you do that.
>>76760267>eat a good dietexcept CICOtards routinely shit on keto which is scientifically the best diet for consistent long term weight loss
>>76759958Why do fats come here to complain about CICO instead of just losing weight
>>76760285>losing weightCICOtard moment
>>76759973trvthnvke retard filter>>76759987>>76760183irrelevant because each molecule of ATP stores a fixed amount of energy in its chemical bonds
>>76760312Only fats complain about CICO. Go walk on the treadmill fatty
>>76760085Its no use educating people here anon. Most of /fit / is barely literate.
>>76759958>his calories out wasn't what he thought it was>guess calories aren't real haha
>>76760549>my hypothesis was proven wrong?>no, couldn't have been. I must've calculated something incorrectly. CICO is irrefutable!
I smell butter every time this gets posted
>>76759958>mathFitness is not an exact science. At best these are approximations. Another reason “science based” lifting is for midwits. Real men eat and pick up heavy things to failure and don’t worry about it
>>76759987>That's totally how the human body worksThat is how the body works, though. You can gain mass if you don't eat it and the easiest way to lose mass is to stop eating and wait for your body to eat itself.
>>76759987thermodynamics can be and is done on isolated and open systems thoughbeitsorry you failed high school chem but don't make it my problem k?
>>76759958>"Oops I didn't reach my goal weight, not because CICO doesn't work, but because....????"Why are you making up shit in your head just to argue about it with other people
>>76760109Eating a lot of carbs makes you retain water and glycogen.when you swithc a low carb diet you piss out a lot of water and glycogen.>and on a diet high in carbohydrate (60 per cent of energy) they gained 2.73 kg. However, on a diet high in protein and fat (70 per cent of energy), they gained significantly less, 1.75 kg1 kilogram is not "significantly less".I piss out a quart of urine when I wake up and there goes 1 kilogram.Then a drink a cup of coffee and have some breakfast and there's my 1 kilogram back again.
>>76760215>You can eat 1000 calories worth of sawdust without filling one fat cellif you eat 1000 calories of sawdust you will puke or shit it all out because humans cant digest lumber you retard.
>>76759958Just stop eating so much fatty.
>>76759958Your metabolism needs to be functioning correctly, and by building muscle through eating more and weight training you boost your metabolism. If you have no muscle and are sedentary then you will not be burning any calories so eating just a normal amount is going to make you gain fat. People put sooo much stock in diet but exercise, activity level, all of these things are just as important.
>>76759958ketolards will go to any lengths to avoid just eating less, which would be hilarious if they weren't leading gullible newfaggots astrayFORK. DOWN. NOW.
>>76760012Calories aren’t a reliable unit of measure. Get over it.
>>76760085uh oh retard alertdoi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.1918>Overeating produced significantly less weight gain in the low protein diet group (3.16 kg; 95% CI, 1.88-4.44 kg) compared with the normal protein diet group (6.05 kg; 95% CI, 4.84-7.26 kg) or the high protein diet group (6.51 kg; 95% CI, 5.23-7.79 kg) (P = .002). Body fat increased similarly in all 3 protein diet groups and represented 50% to more than 90% of the excess stored calories.
>>76759958>estimates his calories out wrong>SEE CICO DOESN'T WORK OMFG GET PWNED LOLOLPLL
>>76759958I'm sick of seeing this malnourished child on my timeline. Why is his neck still paper thin when he made a video on making his neck thicker?
>>76760554>my retarded ass is smarter than 400 years of thermodynamics
>>76759958Anyone who doesn't believe in CICO is a fat fuck that can't put the fork down.
>This entire thread>Not a single body has been posted
>>76760085>overate for 30 dStop overeating and you can't gain weight.
