I am going to kidnap the CICO deniers and transport them to my secret offshore prison facility.There I will estimate their passive calorie burn and feed them, aiming for a 600 calorie deficit daily.The entire process will be televised and their wait loss charted.Once they reach dangerously low levels of bodyweight I will complete the process in reverse and again I will track and televised them getting fatter.
And then it’ll fail hilariously because their metabolism will slow and they’ll just be sitting around in their prison cells with low body temperature
>>77204497There you are
>>77204485>underfeed someone >they lose weight So what does that have to do with calories?
Imagine being so upset over bomb calorimeter made up measures
I'm not familiar with this one, what are the main talking points of the CICO deniers?
>>77204627They think you can eat 5,000 calories of protein and fats and not get fat. They are stupid.
>>77204600fuck off underage b&
>be me>fat my whole life>not losing weight eating 1500 cals at 5’11 for months>cicocels on here say it’s my fault and I’m lying for two years >at wits end>see doctor. Nothing else to lose>checks me>find out I’m not only low t, hypogonadal I’m also insulin resistant>get on proper meds>get on a proper diet for my issue>eat more calories like 2100 a day>40lbs falls off me in 6 months without much cardio at all>mfw if I had just listened to cico retards I’d still be a fat depressed mess blaming myselfYeah. Hormones/ body genetic makeup>> cico Get fucked
>>77204669>get on a proper diet for my issue>eat more calories like 2100 a daybut anon, this proves CICO is right
>>77204669>body is broken in such a way that CICO doesnt work>this means CICO doesnt workno it just means your body was broken. glad you fixed it though.
t. Havent heard of hypothyroidism
>>77204485>wait loss
>>77204600Based fat retarded
>>77204706Starving yourself of protein and energy doesn't prove CICO. It just means your body is consuming itself because it's deprived of nutrients, Hence the weight loss.
>>77204724> your body is consuming itself because it's deprived of nutrientsthats what weight loss is ketotranny
>>77204485Bioactive foods modulate both your calories in and your calories out, in addition to relative body composition changes. This is why CICO only works "properly" if you compare groups of people eating the exact same foods.>protip: you can still develop massive insulin resistance despite a massive caloric deficit
>>77204726No, that's starvation and is unsustainable. It is possible to give your body an abundance of nutrients while simultaneously using your fat stores for energy.Also glad you agree it's NUTRIENTS that matter and not muh calories. Unless you really believe that 500 calories of goybean oil is equivalent to 500 calories of beef.
>>77204727CICO as a label is a problem because pedantic morons get tied up in the measurability of a calorie.instead lets just discuss EIEO, energy in/energy out. forget about what we can actually measure with a bomb calorimeter or whatever. the fact of the matter is that your energy intake is some function of the calories printed on the box. its an approximate estimate. if you are worried about calories being off during your cut, just overestimate them and you'll be safe. its not a complicated concept>>77204737if you compare 2 foods that actually ahve the same macro breakdown, then its a more reasonable comparison. if the protein and calories are the same then the only differences are micros and the satiety (maybe thermic effect too but see above)you can absolutely lose weight and retain muscle eating a deficit of whey+table sugar+multivitamins. its just going to suck ass .
>>77204737Ketoschizo moment
>>77204751and also a reasonable dietary fat intake to support hormone production before some pedantic nerd throws that in
>>77204751>if the protein and calories are the same then the only differences are micros and the satiety (maybe thermic effect too but see above)>and also a reasonable dietary fat intakeUm ACK-shoe-lilly, a lot of bioactive molecules are NOT repeat NOT essential nutrients and DON'T have caloric content. You can hold your protein, macros, and micros constant but gain/lose muscle/fat on the same calories depending upon specific food bioactivities.
>>77204497what a stupid response
>>77204875Bryan Johnson getting colder than a freakin' penguin from eating like an anorexic rabbit because he doesn't know about very many calorie restriction mimetics, so I'm gonna say maybe not.
>>77204485This has been tried several times and always failed. But you do yours.
>>772046271. The human body is not a closed system2. The human body is not a literal furnace3. There is no way to accurately measure how many kcal you ingest4. There is no way to accurately measure how many kcal you burn
>>77204669Hormones decide how you lookCNS decides how you performThat's the old rule and it has never been proven wrong.
>>77205103That's kind of the beauty of cico you don't have to know either when you have weight. It goes down or up you can estimate how much under or over it was by the weight change. The fact that we measure it in calories doesn't matter it could be measured in chicken nuggets as a unit it would still come to the same conclusion.
>>77205111So you're saying cico is fallacious and should be replaced with something actually scientifical ok got it
>>77205111>If you lose weight that's proof you're under your daily calorie needsYou realize that's circular logic, right?
>>77205150Do you live in some quantum universe where effect can proceed cause?>>77205122No I'm saying it's an adequate and actionable description based off backtracking from effect to cause until we made formulas and measurement systems where it tracks both ways. You can make your own units representing p:c:f for all I care it with math out same way in a controlled environment.
>>77204653have you tried?
>>77205161>effect can proceed cause?The theoretical cause is ill founded
>>77204485>muh calories>gaining muscle>too many calories>just as much muscle>cocks in my ass>sucking on weenies
>>77205166Not logging for sneaky cheat meals doesn't make the cause ill founded it just makes the data obscured which is fine we can still see you're fat and make the conclusion accurately that you eat too much without that data.
>cico cultists think they're clever for pointing out that over eating causes weight gainyeah no shit, morons. You think no one was aware and you're providing some great service to humanity by pointing it out for the first time ever? You're that fucking stupid?
>>77205171>ad hominemSorry you're so upset over being wrong
>>77205174Aw fuck concession schizo found the thread. Pack it up
>>77205176Is that your crush ? Or boyfriend ? Regardless, i wish you a wonderful day and know im always open to constructive arguments given that you calm down and recollect your thoughts and anger.
>>77205162It has been
>>77205186you're a dishonest spergy little shit aren't you?
>>77205196Sorry you're so upset that you were given multiple examples in response to your question.
>>77204485why estimate calorie burn when you can just use room calorimeter
>>77205209What
>>77205200and what was my question again please, dishonest spergy little shit with no life who trolls here every day? you didn't answer it did you?
>>77204497Then he'll lower their daily calories by another 600.
>>77205103There are ways to accurately measure how many calories you ingest and burn. All foods have known calorie amounts roughly associated with them. You can estimate your ingest. You measure it daily for a few weeks and assuming your weight stays about the same that means that's the amount your roughly burn.
Fast chads don’t have a problem >get fat>stop eating until not fat anymore
>>77204485Is there rape involved or will I have to bring my own?
Concession kun btfo lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIdxuNMbOlQ&l
>>77204669>Get told CICO works for normal people>Go to the doctor>get told my CI and CO are different than what I'm predicting because I have a disorder that makes me not normal people>this is 4chan's fault somehow
>>77204485>hmm what should I eatmaybe you should do some exercise>I haven't tried the keto dietmaybe you should do some exercise>let me check my calorie deficitsmaybe you should do some exercise>man my blood sugar and insulin levels are all over the place, it's really hardmaybe you should do some exercise
>>77204497wait... so you're telling me... that if you LOSE WEIGHT... your METABOLISM CHANGES... and you REQUIRE LESS CALORIES IN... because you are expending LESS CALORIES OUT...holy shit. how profound.
>>77206312Stop being disindigenous and conceed defeat. We're talking adaptive thermogenesis that can't be explained by by loss of lean mass alone. Reverse dieting gets you out of it, and fundamentally dismantles CICO: You eat more to lose weight after stalling with profound bradycardia and hypothermia
>>77206326>disindigenousHEYA HOYA
>>77206328>>77206326We got it the first time.
>>77206326>>77206328you can't even write a coherent sentence. give it up.
>>77204485Based nigga
>>77206338>reference went over anons headOh wellIf a 6 foot 25 year old weighs 150 lbs at 15% bodyfat and has been weight stable, he has a TDEE of 2,044 kcalIf 6 foot 25 year old weighs 150 lbs at 15% bodyfat and has lost 50 lbs in the past 6 months, his metabolism will be coping and seething and downregulated to a TDEE of 1696 kcal via low T3, low T, low HR, low core temp, low respiration frequency.
>>77206398Please explain to the class what you think the word reference means.
>>77206399Alluding to a mutually understood joke, meme, cultural nugget etc. In this case the South Park episode Columbus Day
>>77206398>compare different CO>they require different CI>this somehow disproves CICO
>>77206416Of course, there's no way anyone could have mistaken that "reference". It's so clear from the context of talking about metabolism and calories that we were meant to derive that specific episode of South Park.
>CICO will work to lose weight. >As long as the subject is locked in a controlled environment to reinforce the accuracy of all estimates and compliance is literally compulsory.That is exactly our point, OP.
>>77206495CICO adherents insist that if you have X lean mass, you burn Y calories. If you lose weight, you naturally burn fewer calories due to a reduction in metabolically active lean tissue. This is universal law.But deep in a deficit, your expenditure falls more than cam be predicted from lost tissue alone. In such cases of severe metabolic adaptation, the guy would lose more weight with diet breaks, if not flat-out reverse dieting. This is a nuance missed by a 150 lbs CICO fundamentalist telling a 150 lbs former fatty on a diet to put down the fork.
>>77206524>X lean massIt's not even this, they just go off BMI based calculations. Lean mass as a measure is very unreliable as well since water is also lean mass but yeah obviously someone with more muscle would burn more or at some point their body would become efficient with ressources and burn the "normal" persons rate
>>77206524Nta but I'm a CICO adherent and I absolutely do NOT say that. I have hypothyroidism so I know first hand that online metabolic rate calculators are not accurate for everyone. If you want to lose or gain weight, you should log how many calories you eat and whether your weight is decreasing, increasing or staying the same. Depending on that data, you should either increase or decrease your daily calories to achieve the desired result.
i started tracking calories yesterday and realized while putting in my second meal that i've been undereating this entire time, hence skinny twinkaloid mode for almost my entire life. anyone who denies CICO is a fattyminded
>>77206535You sound like a woman
>>77206542thanks for the compliment, seems i pass so well it even carries over written text
>>77206549>Unironic cicotranny
>>77206398All these markers will recover in time especially if they actually exercise Does not disprove CICO in the slightest
