File: Bild_2026-04-13_105518057.png (88 KB, 225x224)

88 KB PNG

>>77203386
Sure, just look how Americans changed since keto got mainstream.

>>77203386
Eliminating sugar completely is literally impossible, he must mean refined/added sugar

>>77203386
>losing weight makes you look better
wow stop the presses

>>77203386
It's incredible. He turned into a completely different person. Literally not the same person in the two pictures.

>>77203711
You can lose weight by just eating sugar and bread though. CICO is law.

>>77203386
do words mean nothing anymore

File: 1642797901572.jpg (88 KB, 900x900)

88 KB JPG

>>77203719
CICO is a retroactive attribution. Whatever you eat minus whatever is stored as fat/glycogen is defined as "calories out" so it doesn't tell you shit.

Of course you can lose weight by starving yourself. But there are healthier ways of getting in shape. Starving yourself only breaks down your psyche.

>>77203386
Who is he?

>>77203386
Misleading title
Also the right pic is him in 2016, and the fat pic is him in 2026

>>77203719
CICO is la- ACK
>Dozens of deficiencies
>Suboptimal functioning and energy
>Loses more hair from the counting itself than the weight loss and malnutrition
I find it funny that gymcels believe in body recomp which completely BTFO cico but still are adamant on applying a destitute method that relies on counting how long it takes to burn x or y in a closed system

>>77203828
>closed system
the only difference between an open system and a closed system is that there can be a net change in the system's mass/energy.
but the rule holds that the equation has to balance out.
What's true is that calorie measurements are imprecise and there will be mild but potentially significant differences in how people metabolize, but the principle holds even if it can't be casually measured.
Still, here has never, ever been any recorded case of a person eating a hypocaloric diet in a controlled environment who has not lost weight.

>>77203698
There are only trace amounts in most real foods. Really the only natural source of significant sugar is honey. I don't get why people obsess over arbitrary balance of macros rather just trying to eat natural. Man-made shit doesn't belong in anyone's diet.

>>77203712
>fit is now mostly reposting the most retarded facebook clickbait
This is the top tier content you can't get anywhere else.

>>77203386
I eat moderate amounts of bread and sugar, easily mog both the b4 and after photos.

>>77203845
>The principle holds if it cant be measured
>Proceeds to vehemently defend equations that only apply if you go through a lobotomy and pretend that your body is a bomb calorimeter with no thyroid functions, no hormon fluctuations, no endocrine system that absorbs every little speck of dust you throw at it

>>77203850
Post body (you wont)

File: 1753912757864761.jpg (85 KB, 736x920)

85 KB JPG

>>77203719
This.
I went crazy eating candy and tortilla chips for a few months, but I was still at a slight deficit + cardio, so I lost some weight even while eating like a pig.

>>77203856
>Cuts krebs cycle
>Muh cico vindicated !
You people lack self awareness

>>77203862
tell me more about this baby kreb in my stomach burning calories on a bicycle in my stomach how does he work and where does he come from and why is he so into zone 2 cardio?

>>77203852
The principle holds even if it can't be measured casually, that is, with a calorie counter and your bathroom scale. It can be measured very accurately in laboratory conditions that are too expensive for a gym goer to regularly undergo.
The equations in question hold in all physical systems. No amount of hormones can turn water into body fat. No amount of hormones can turn inhaled carbon into body stores of energy.
The only way for fat to accumulate is a sufficient mass of reduced carbon (in specific molecular forms) entering your body compared to the oxidized carbon you are exhaling. Calories are a proxy measure of that carbon, because those molecules have specific enthalpies in their bonds compared to the enthalpies of the molecules you can synthesize.
Your body will not absorb every speck you throw at it, 'calories in' is 'calories absorbed'. So indeed some people may absorb 300 calories of energy from a meal and some may absorb 310. However, these ranges have tight physical constraints around the amount of molecules in them.
Likewise some people will have lower resting metabolism due to hormones and their thyroid, but their life sustaining functions have a well defined floor. You can't live unless you synthesize X amount of certain molecules, and those molecules have enthalpies, those synthesis pathways have energy requiremenets expressed in discreet amounts of ATP due to fixed enzyme structures.

who do I believe the guy saying all the sciency sounding shit or the dude saying there's a crab inside me doing cardio that burns ghost calories that aren't measured

>>77203921
>No amount of hormones can turn water/inhaled carbon into body fat.
Yes because your body has selective absorption that's dependent on your thyroid function and can even be hindered by something like fiber. I dont know why you thought this was a point for CICO.
>So indeed some people may absorb 300 calories of energy from a meal and some may absorb 310.
The margin of error is way larger than that considering you wont be measuring every last leaf of salad you ingest, considering cooking, considering absorption and macro+micronutrient profiles. There's literally no actual regulation or norm around calories besides carbohydrates= same calories as protein, fat = more calories than both, neither is there any respect for basic biology such as krebs cycle or protein being more thermogenic and requiring more energy to be synthesized and used than other nutrients, not all protein being equal, not all carbohydrates being equal in terms of insulin spikes etc.
Cico is the midwit trap for weight loss

It's ok to be ignorant actually a good excuse to keep learning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle

>>77203943
>Yes because your body has selective absorption
Again, calories in is calories absorbed. So sure you won't be able to measure with perfect accuracy in your kitchen how much you will absorb, but you will gain weight if you absorb more calories than you utilize.
Physically a bomb calorimeter provides an absolute ceiling of energy absorbption. All carbon bonds we can oxidize in the body are combustible. Full stop. So if a bomb calorimeter measures 100 calories for a mass of food, that's the absolute most you would ever absorb (and of course, it's often a lot more, since fiber is combustible but can't be metabolized).
Again, no amount of hormones could make me absorb 150 calories from a 100 calorie measured food. I might absorb less, and that can throw a gym goer's calculations. But the principle is holding in the background, weight gain or weight loss will depend the balance between calories used and calories acquired.
>The margin of error is way larger than that considering
None of these disprove the principle. They make it harder to apply with precision in practice.
Over long periods of measurement, the margins often even out, allowing for practical application. The evidence of that is inpatient underfeeding and overfeeding studies show pretty predictable weight changes when administered a diet weighed by physicians/dieticians.
That's how I know you're full of shit man, when people are placed in controlled environments and given calories measured foods, the outcomes are predictable. There isn't a single underfeeding or overfeeding study with people randomly gaining weight on a hypocaloric diet or losing weight on a hypercaloric diet. Ever.
So unless you can produce evidence of someone in a controlled environment defying CICO, you're hemming and hawing about shit you don't understand.

>>77203966
>Again, no amount of hormones could make me absorb 150 calories from a 100 calorie measured food.
This was never the point, you're making up statements now.
The point is that your body will metabolize it into fat and store it instead of burning it, due to multiple factors. Thermodynamics are irrelevant in this discussion and at best oversimplify the biochemistry behind metabolism.
Your body has selective bonding mechanisms, a calorimeter doesn't. Or else you wouldnt be shitting.
>But the principle is holding in the background, weight gain or weight loss will depend the balance between calories used and calories acquired.
Wrong, your body is again NOT a bomb calorimeter who indiscriminately burn and evacuates every last carbon dioxide you put inside of it. We have fat storages with peripilins and caveolins being a black box, water retention and rabbit starvation as another principle that disproves CICO.
No one argues against thermodynamic, we're arguing against it being applies indiscriminately in a context where chemistry matters more than physics.
>They make it harder to apply with precision in practice.
Which completely disproves the CICO autism of counting x numbers - y number to determine weight loss outcomes without any regard for anything other than calorimeter measures.

>>77203976
>The point is that your body will metabolize it into fat and store it instead of burning it, due to multiple factors.
You're overstating how much this can happen. The fact is, there's a hard floor to how much you can 'not burn' and survive. You'll need to spend x amount to synthesize transaminase, and y amount to replenish red blood cells. There's flexibility in BMR, but the sorts of diseases that would lead you to have considerable burn beneath that are both very serious and apparent, your teeth would fall out, your organs would fail.
And then with physical movement, there's also a hard floor. The amount it takes to displace a 75kg mass a certain distance with certain speed is the absolute minimum amount your body will burn doing that. So a human being that moves x amount has an absolute minimum calories they will have to burn. Physics is unrelenting here.
Really the big variations between people come down to eating without noticing (liquid calories, cooking fats, snacking doesn't count because it's a meal) and moving less than they think (hell, thyroid plays into this more than BMR, by decreasing NEAT).
>Wrong, your body is again NOT a bomb calorimeter who indiscriminately burn and evacuates every last carbon dioxide you put inside of it.
You don't burn carbon dioxide, so maybe get that right first retard. And no, your body will not indiscriminately burn and evacuate all carbon. But the sum of carbon evacuated with the sum of carbon stored is equal to the sum of carbon ingested. Always. That's CICO. I cannot store Xg of lipids and exhale Yg of carbon dioxide in a day if I haven't ingested a minimum Zg of metabolizable carbon.
You still haven't proivided a SINGLE case of an inpatient study where CICO didn't hold.

>>77203776
You can ONLY gain or lose weight through cico. If you deny this, you're either actively delusional or simply do not understand cico. It's that simple.

File: trashiusmaximus.png (450 KB, 454x600)

450 KB PNG

>>77203852
>thyroid functions, hormone fluctuations, endocrine system
None of that has anything to do with the principle of CICO though. I know you're trying very hard, but you have a poor grasp of empirical reality and are just not very smart sorry.

>>77203776
the world if full of retards and scammer-grifters who have Phds and MDs and have millions of fans who casually tell them the only way to get fat is muh insulin sensitivity and muh carbs and muh PUFAs.
for these retards we need to say CICO is real. say it with me. CICO IS REAL.

>>77204000
>You don't burn carbon dioxide, so maybe get that right first retard.
>>77203966
>All carbon bonds we can oxidize in the body are combustible
LMAO !!!!!!! Of course cicotranny has no grasp on physics you're literally just spewing back AI hallucinations and now chatgpt contradicted itself for you.
>>77204123
I accept your concession, it can be pretty upsetting to be wrong and have your worldview destroyed.

>>77204152
pb you mentally ill retard

>>77203966
>They make it harder to apply with precision in practice.
>when people are placed in controlled environments
You think these are footnotes that can be glossed over as you make your undeniable logical point.
>Over long periods of measurement, the margins often even out, allowing for practical application.
This is simply a baseless assertion and the word "often" is doing some extremely heavy lifting here.


People are trying to tell you that those lines are not footnotes, because "in practice" is where we all live and "controlled environment" is where we do not. You're annoyed because this isn't relevant to your point. Your point is pedantic.

>>77204152
Carbon dioxide is the waste product.Carbon dioxide can't 'burn', the carbons in it are too oxidized and can't combust or really be used for net postitive energy release. The carbon bonds we can oxidize are not in carbon dioxide, they're in reduced carbons like those in sugars and lipids.
You can't appeal to chemistry when you don't understand it.
Being fat really makes you quite stupid. Is this why you're on a little crusade?
I'm sorry you couldn't make CICO work. Maybe you could try getting help from a dietician to construct a meal plan.

>>77203847
there is sugar in every single plant

>>77204160
I can readily concede a lot here. I don't think you can use bare-ass CICO calculations to reliably say, lose or gain exactly 300g every week. That my point about 'precision', the margins of error in day to day calculation will be too high.
But you can only lose some amount of weight each week if you reduce your caloric intake, and you can only consistently reduce it by at least making a frank attempt at measuring and adapting the intake heuristically.
>This is simply a baseless assertion
No. The basis for this assertion is that calorie counting is demonstrably effective if it is consistent. Here's one example of an outpatient study
https://pmc(.)ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5568610/
Calories are the basis of both structured meal plans in outpatient and inpatient studies. With outpatient studies especially showing that a dietician's calculation and subsequent adherence is often enough to achieve weight loss.
The margins cannot be so crazy to get consistent results there.
>People are trying to tell you that those lines are not footnotes
They are footnotes in that mismeasurement is a much, much bigger factor for difficulties with CICO than anything else. People in controlled environments see a good effectiveness of CICO? Then the prospective dieter needs to exercise greater control of their environment. Weigh food. Count oils. Learn to sight-measure cups of food for eating out estimates.

>>77204195
>https://pmc(.)ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5568610/
>The group sessions were participatory and interactive over 60 minutes, rather than didactic. Session activities fostered problem solving, group interactions and social support, skill development such as reading food labels, calculating calories and fat, and setting achievable goals for each week. Many sessions included guided physical activity, food demonstrations, or model meals. The intervention was tailored to the participants' preferences and readiness to change with careful attention to cultural appropriateness for the target populations. Each session program encouraged participants to set and develop reasonable short-term goals and behavioral action plans toward dietary modifications and moderate physical activity of 150 minutes per week. Food tracking booklets and pedometers were provided to monitor their dietary and physical activity levels.
>Participants were encouraged to do the following: (1) maintain daily food journals and physical activity records; (2) reduce portion sizes; (3) reduce foods high in calories, fat, and simple sugar; (4) increase consumption of fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy products; and (5) weigh themselves frequently and at least weekly.

This study stands for the proposition that calorie counting is "demonstrably effective" - when it's one bullet point in a holistic five-point plan that emphasizes qualitative food choices as much as quantitative, and without doing any actual BMR/calories-out calculations or setting any target caloric intake, and when you do all of this with a literal educational support group.

This is exactly everyone's point man.

>>77204051
Where did the anti cico Jews come from? Are they scared they stop getting the ozempic money?

CICOtrannies have all gone through a lobotomy procedure that makes it impossible for them to understand the effect of different hormones in the human body.
Or the fact that losing body weight and losing body fat are not the same thing, which makes calorie counting useless.
For them, eating 2000kcal worth of table sugar and twinkies is the same as 2000kcal of meat and vegetables and "health" is just an irrelevant social construct (just like gender! ;^) ).

They cannot be helped, their atrophied brains are incapable of understanding this level of nuance, and it's better to just leave them to autistically screech alone.

>>77204298
You're missing the entire point of the study. There was a differential effect to tracking. All participants got those other elements, but when divided by adherence to calorie tracking specifically, the consistent trackers did best.
Moreover two other points are very directly related to CICO "(2) reduce portion sizes; (3) reduce foods high in calories".
And "(4) increase consumption of fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy products" is evidenced to decrease caloric intake due to satiety from fiber and protein. Ultimately it is helpful because of CICO.
Qualitative food choices are very important, they can be the difference between feeling great on a deficit and feeling like shit. Between being sated and being hungry. Between adhering to the plan and dropping it. Between losing muscle and rebounding and losing only fat (or even gaining some muscle for untrained subjects).
But CICO is an unbreakable principle underpinning this. And even with retarded food choices, weight loss will occur if there's a deficit.
Statements like 'you can lose weight eating only bread and sugar' are not saying anyone should do that, they're just stating a physical reality. They're more true in a literal sense compared to the claims made by diet grifters that any amount of raw meat or whatever is biologically incapable of causing weight gain.
There's far more hopeless fat people eating dumb fad diets than there are people losing weight on twinkies.

>>77204338
>For them, eating 2000kcal worth of table sugar and twinkies is the same as 2000kcal of meat and vegetables and "health" is just an irrelevant social construct
They're not at all the same. But they'll have the same effect on body weight specifically (excepting water retention due to sodium/glycogen) in the short term.
On the long term, the sugar and twinkies guy may gain weight, but it'll still be because of CICO. They'll be hungrier, leading to more calories in, and lose muscle, leading to calories out.
>Or the fact that losing body weight and losing body fat are not the same thing.
Counting calories + Counting macros + weightlifting is a pretty solid approach. The caloric part is specifically to define the scale movement direction. It's the ONLY thing that defines how the scale moves (minus water)

>>77204338
You're a fag

>>77204363
>There was a differential effect to tracking.
Tracking in a food journal, that logs food both quantitatively and qualitatively, and logs exercise merely descriptively - and that's it. No calories-out calculation. No daily calorie goal or budget. No taking the numbers and doing literally anything with them, merely journaling them while focusing all actual effort and attention on everything but the raw numbers.

The participants in the study did not do the things that CICOtists here on /fit/ proscribe, period. The doctors are left speculating as to whether it's that simply becoming more aware or mindful of one's habits nudges behavior towards more responsibility, or if there's even a causative relationship at all and the logging was itself was just an expression of the underlying character that made them more likely to succeed.

It bears repeating: The participants of the study did not do what CICOtists say everyone should do, and the doctors did not conclude that people should do what CICOtists say to do either.

>they're just stating a physical reality.
Which is pedantic and annoying, when people are trying to have discussions about diet/behavior strategies and food choices with some kind of depth and some fucking faggot interjects to say, "Ehrm akschually, it's literally just thermodynamics so this is all pointless, just use a calculator duh".

>>77204331
>Where did the anti cico Jews come from?
They've always been around. Measuring and tracking food is a pain in the ass, and foregoing impromptu snacks sucks. Anti-cico retards claim it doesn't work so they don't have to change their habits or discipline themselves. I don't think the jews are responsible for this beyond promoting HAES.