Wait, cico was wrong this whole time?
>>77233773https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIdxuNMbOlQ&
>>77233783>Pottenger's HumanThis guys youtube channel is one of the best. Extremely underrated.
>>77233773>>77233783>>77233787buy an ad, subhuman samefag
>>77233773>reduced energy expenditure
>>77233894How do you increase energy expenditure on cico?
>>77233939what's "on cico"
>>77233940Whatever it is flat calorie theorists do when they are trying to lose weight.
>>77233950"off cico" means calories are no longer going in and out?
>>77233773nope.
>>77233894>>77233940>>77233957Ooooh…. So “calories” aren’t the only thing that matter, since the same amount of calories result in different levels of energy expenditure depending on the type of food.CICO doesn’t take this into account.
>>77233981CICO: Calories In Calories Out
>>77233981>different levels of energy expenditureCalories out.
>>77233957Measurements don't go anywhere.Your brain has been poisoned by big sugar.
>>77233989How do calorie believers try to increase their energy expenditure?
>>77233987>>77233989It’s so cute seeing CICOtards using mental gymnastics to cope with this. If you mentioned different foods being better for weight loss, they’d say “It doesn’t matter about the food, it’s about calories!” But if you show them evidence that calories aren’t the sole determiner of energy expenditure, but rather the makeup of the food’s nutrition, then they backtrack completely and say “Well, that’s calories out.”It has nothing to do with calories: because the “same calories” result in different levels of weight loss/gain depending on the food they come from.
>>77233773CICULTISTS?!How do we kill this ketolard?
>>77234012what are you talking about retard everybody recommends doing cardio to increase your calories out.
>>77234012To simplify this even more:The phrase is “calories in, calories out”, meaning that if my calories consumed is lower than my energy expenditure, then I lose weight.However, in real life, we find that someone with a calorie maintenance of 2000 can lose weight eating 2000 calories of one type of food, or gain weight eating 2000 calories of another type of food.In other words, the food’s calories aren’t the determiner of weight loss. Therefore, CICO is inaccurate.
>>77234016Reading comprehension 404. Did you even read the OP? This is about food, not exercise.
>>77233773>Weight gainNow do fat gain
>>77234018>we find that someone with a calorie maintenance of 2000Your calorie maintenance is not static, if you eat shit you can't actually digest then yeah you're just gonna shit most of it out, thus increasing calories out.
>>77234021you sound like a fat retard.
>>77234016>everybody recommends doing cardio to increase your calories out.Yeah, because flat calorie theorists are morons who believe in additive DEE.
>>77234030So I need to start scientifically analysing the calories in my poo to accurately gain or lose weight? Wow, CICO sounds awesome.
>>77234018It feels like your confusion stems from not understanding that whatever TDEE you got from an online calculator isn't always accurate. If you're not losing weight despite intaking less calories than what it told you, then eat even less. Simple as.
>>77234018>someone with a calorie maintenance of 2000There's no such thing. Your "calorie maintenance" is basically the average of your daily calorie expenditure over a given timeframe, and that changes depending on your lifestyle and such.You're at war with online maintenance calorie calculators, not with cico.
>>77234040>eat less>metabolism goes down>fail to lose weight>eat less again>metabolism goes down>regain weightCalorietards will never learn. Their brains are non-functional from low energy.
>>77234031Oh, no ketoschizoers. What new lies will we spin next?
>>77234039Nah just decrease your daily calorie intake until the weight starts going down. Is that really so difficult for you? Must be hard being you.
>>77234044ok. good luck with losing weight then.
>>77233981It is literally the CO part of CICO, which CICO deniers never seem to tire of ignoring.
>>77234046>decrease calorie intake>destroy metabolism>regain weightOh no.
>>77234128From your own whitepaper in the op:The initial reluctance to consume the standard chow after wheat flour cessation likely reflected a persistent preference for wheat flour, resulting in a temporary reduction in food intake despite hunger. This early response appears to involve behavioral adaptation to the change in diet, as well as potential central nervous system (CNS) mechanisms affecting feeding motivation and alertness. Notably, these changes were accompanied by a rapid attenuation of body weight gain and reduced adipose tissue accumulation, suggesting that both behavioral and CNS-mediated responses contributed to the short-term metabolic effects. Food intake returned to baseline within two weeks, indicating that these effects were transient and reversible.>suggesting that both behavioral and CNS-mediated responses contributed to the short-term metabolic effects. Food intake returned to baseline within two weeks, indicating that these effects were transient and reversible.
>>77233939there's this neat thing called "physical exercise", you should try it sometime
did they mouse study disprove laws of thermodynamics?
>>77234044>Danny Cahillthis guy lost 239lb. No shit you burn less calories when you lose more than half your weight kek
Crazy the lengths that some retards go to justify not losing weight, just take the peptide already KEK
>>77234273>Experts (one illiterate ketolard) suggest that this could be the case!
>>77234273OP can't lose weight because mice that gorge on wheat move around less.
>>77233939That would be the CO part of CICO you mongoloid
>>77234170The OP study didn't include a weight loss diet.
>>77234284>less than expectedHow do calorietards calculate expected TDEE? Do they calculate it based on current weight or starting weight?>>77234429I want to do CICO. Tell me how to increase my CO.
>>77233773Grinding up food increases its surface area, making it easier to digest, increasing your calories in and decreasing the calories needed to digest the food, decreasing your calories out. Calories in a food are a rough estimate. Some of the food you eat passes through undigested for various reasons. A dense piece of meat, for example; your body might not get all the way to the core of it. Or maybe you ate so much all in one sitting that your intestines couldn't keep up. If you're trying to autistically calculate anything involving a human body you're doing it wrong. Just weigh yourself every day and keep a rolling average of the last two weeks, and eat more, less, or the same as the previous day depending on what direction you want your weight to go.
Yeah kek who thought the body wasnt a bomb calorimeter in vacuum conditionsIn fact even in a bomb calorimeter a lot of elements would need a catalyzer to turn into CO2. Imagine the human body that shits fiber and Phytochemicals right though and has 20 different systems in place to selectively absorb or use or store or shit x or y ingested productAccording to cico, we shouldnt even be able to poop
>>77234909You don't need to know your TDEE. You just need to know your weight. All diets adhere to the rule of CICO, so just eat whatever your current diet is. To decrease your CI eat less of it. To increase your CO move more.
>>77234957Why do kike-oh conspiracy theorists always default back to this cope. You realize that you're just admitting there's more parameters than ingested food and exercise output ? Which completely disqualifies calories counting and tdee estimation. The margin of error is in the 3 digits.
>>77234957Wrong.Pic related:>same calories eaten>same calories absorbed>different body compositionIt's hormones.
>>77234970Explain in great detail why your body wouldnt reduce it "CO" with adaptation to exercise the same way it reduces the output of any function, like heartbeat as it becomes more efficient>But t-thats still CO !!!Ok show me how you'll measure it
>>77234970>flat calorie theorist believes in additive DEELol. So predictable. See: >>77234037
>>77234976How do they know the calories were the same
>>77234976It doesnt matter. What you absolute retarded faggots dont get is that CICO is easy to use and produces results. Want to lose weight? Eat a bit less than usual. Want to lose even more weight? Eat less. Want to gain weight? Eat more. It is a simple method anyone can use and see results. It doesn't require autistic levels of interest to figure out hormones or other difficult to quantify parameters. You just use the number they literally print on food packaging and do addition and subtraction.Anyone can do it. It is simple and quick. It produces results. Younsre so fucking dumb you are literally a reddit nigger arguing metric vs imperial. No one gives a shit what you think because you never tell anyone how to accomplish a weight loss goal in a practical way like CICO does. Its all just contrarianist bullshit out your mouth. K to the YS you fat fuck.
>>77235021They measured the intake and the feces.
>>77235023CICO literally caused the obesity epidemic.Before Sugar Information Inc advertised CICO everyone was lean.Traditionally people dieted by cutting out starch and sugar.
>rats become lethargic on high flour diet and do less exercise>gain weight when compared to non-lethargic rats on an equal calorie diet THIS MEANS CICO IS FALSE! TAKE THAT CULTISTS!
>>77235101>muh exerciseAdditive DEE is a myth, brainlet. See: >>77234037Body composition is determined by hormones>elevated circulating insulin and leptin levelsInsulin is the obvious culprit here. See also: >>77234903
Fatties coping so they can eat everything in site
>>77235111Yeah, fatties love CICO because they can't accept that their favourite foods (sugar & starch) are inherently fattening.
>>77234909>Tell me how to increase my CONot that anon, but the best way is to increase your expenditure of energy
>>77233773>>77233783>>77233787Ketoschizo is at it again, are you upset people on /fat/ made you crack?
If you suddenly provided the rats with half the wheat flour they were accustomed to eating, they would lose weight. The principle still holds. Eat less and you’ll lose weight. Faggot.
>>77235203Wrong, they would either stall the weight loss or even gain some.
>>77235270>If you give rats half the wheat flour they were accustomed to eating, they actually will gain weightKeto-schizo may be the single dumbest poster on /fit/
>>77235274Psoasbot vs ketoschizo /fit/irity Deathmatch, let's go!
>>77235283>PsoasbotNever got much contact with him, does he spam as much as ketoschizo?
>>77235274You cant prove it wrongRevise : >>77234978
>>77233773>>77235283CICO and keto are both scams. You have to eat a balanced diet and autistically research all your food bioactivities on PubMed, even checking for published clinical trials, in addition to tracking macros and micros. Otherwise, you're 100% NGMI.
>>77235296Post body
>>77235289He's more schizo than the keto shill. Ironically he also gives actual advice, and doesn't lie... This is a very very weird place.
>>77235314>He's more schizo than the keto shill. Ironically he also gives actual advice, and doesn't lie... This is a very very weird place.Now I'm curious to see his posts, where can I find him?
>>77235318Just search bot, psoas and :D in archives
>>77235117why are vegans underweight then if they mostly eat starch and sugar? it don't make any sense
Is this retard a janny, why isn't he banned? He has been spamming these garbage for years, the same retarded shit over and over. One would think that if he was right in the slightest, he would have lost the weight by now and move on but he is still morbidly obese arguing with himself why he doesn't put the minimum effort in and just eat less.
>>77235815
https://youtu.be/y5lufYHM9hk?
>>77233773CICO is just for slop lovers who desperately want a way to keep eating pizza and fried chicken while trying to be "healthy". Enjoy your nutrient deficiencies
>>77234044Woah so we just solved world hunger guys! Just don't eat and you'll gain MORE weight
LOL im on a yolo cut rn and literally eat like shit at a caloric deficit and still lose weight every week. skill issue keto losers
>>77234037Just pure coincidence Phelps can eat 12k calories
>>77234037Mind to give the source for this study?
>>77233773cicotards and ketotards and vegantards and glptards are all arguing half of the cico formula at any given time and its basically a pointless argument by a bunch of retards that want to feel like everyone is stupid but them (not like me at all)
>>77235838>shoo shoo hungry skeleton
>>77235838This guy bought this selfie from fiverr to argue on /fat/ btw, check recent threads is curious
>>77233773It's not wrong, but people focus too autistically on the CI part of CICO without realizing what goes into the CO part of it.When cutting, your body doesn't magically burn less calories because of "muh starvation mode" or whatever. It's because a not insignificant part of the CO comes from passive movement, (non-exercise activity thermogenesis, or NEAT). When you are intaking less calories and your body has less energy available, it downregulates your NEAT processes which lowers your TDEE. I've seen studies showing that NEAT accounts for anywhere from 10-30% of your TDEE, but it explains a LOT about why some people can lose weight and others can't. Now you can work around this downregulation by forcing yourself to burn more calories so the drop off in NEAT isn't as impactful, this is where the "gotta get my steps crew" succeeds. Anyways, to sum up my thoughts. CICO is still correct, but poorly understood by gay retards such as yourself. Thank you for reading my post.
>>77236759The image is a screenshot from a book Burn by Herman Pontzer.
>>77236985>The image is a screenshot from a book Burn by Herman Pontzer.Did a quick search, this Herman Pontzer is a pop-sci book author, who wrote a "theory" about how exercise doesn't led to calorie consumption increasing, despite every single study saying otherwise, and has been heavily criticized for basically making up stuff. Why do you even quote a fucker know for being wrong?
>>77234037>>77234044>exercise doesn't help you lose weight>IT JUST SO HAPPENS that every single marathoner, MMA fighter, swimmer, climber, etc. is rail skinnyYour body makes small adjustments based on activity, but it's basically impossible to not be a healthy weight if you are regularly exercise, and don't pig out on pure garbage
>>77236991>Why do you even quote a fucker know for being wrong?honestly because I'm gay and retarded and wanted to ragebait people.
>>77236999This may be the only good reason for doing so, keep going the good work, anon.
>>77236991This post is written like a redditor. Probably an LLM.Herman Pontzer cited two studies in the image. One on women and one on rodents. He also did his own studies comparing Hadza who walk 10 hours a day with sedentary westerners. They burn the same calories per day. Walking does not increase TDEE.Furthermore Kleiber's line proves that animals energy expenditure is constrained by body mass.And we can just use basic common sense. If you buy a 5kW generator you can't get it to generate 10kW of energy just by plugging more stuff into it. The capacity of a generator doesn't increase by adding more power draw to it.
>just exercise to violate Kleiber's lawlmao calorietards are so cringe
>Daily energy expenditures for Hadza men and women are the same as adults in industrialized populations.Oh no cicobros the calorie skeptics keep winning.
>>77237039post physique
>>77237041Isn't he the guy who was saying an 1km walk in the park as beyond his capacity?
>>77237017Can you give a source for the studies, instead of crying because people aren't taking your conman as an autority?
>>77234978You don't need to measure it, you just do more. Go run a mile a day. Weight still the same after two weeks? Run two miles a day. Weight still the same after two weeks? Run three miles a day. Continue adding mileage until your weight starts going down. And here's the important part, don't stop. If your body adapts to running four miles a day, that's what you do now, because doing less than that will cause your weight to go up. Same with food. You eat less until your weight goes down, then once it's down, you continue eating that amount forever. You don't "go back to normal," what you're at is the new normal.
>>77236976Everyone who has genuinely cut knows this. You just feel cold and tired all the time. Your body is doing everything it can to down throttle your everyday processes rather than break out the fat reserves.
>>77237135>Everyone who has genuinely cut knows this. You just feel cold and tired all the time.I cut many times and never felt any of this.
>NOOOOOOOOP LAWS OF THERMAL DYNAMICS>NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE>NONONPNPKAJAHJSLDLLDLAKA
>>77237135That only happens if your insulin is elevated. If you quit eating carbs your metabolism increases instead of decreasing.
>>77237322Which means more calories burned, qjat now cicolard?
>>77237039>people in tribal communities are adapted to not expending too many calories, so they don't starve Wow, who'd have thunk it? >>77234976>>77233773Different bodies, with different hormone balances, gut bacteria microbiomes and genes for muscular and metabolism will process calories slightly differently. It does not change or already cico, you just adapt to your energy expenditure and monitoring how quickly you lose or gain weight, and mark adjustments accordingly.
>>77237360CICO is a sugar industry hoax.
>>77237322>If you quit eating carbs your metabolism increases instead of decreasing.Dude, you're mistaking ketosis with an increased metabolism, your metabolism tanks without carbs.
>>77237444Every 10% reduction in carbs gives an average of 50kcal/day metabolic boost. It's much higher in the top insulin secreters.Quitting carbs for a fat person gives ~450kcal/day metabolic boost.
You guys ever pronounce it sicko? I kind of like doing that
>>77237360And you do that...how? By making made up assumptions ? So much about muh thermodynamics
