i'm not losing weight on 1200 cals
Are you moving at all
>>77422706Wondering if my problem was i was eating too often to space my protein through the day
>>77422706sounds like you cant count.
>>77422711i walk sometimes
>>77422714Sorry i offended your CICO religion
>>77422717How long of walks do you take?
>>774227235-7 kms 3 times a week
>>77422706>i'm not losing weight on 1200 calsthen you're not eating 1200 cals
>>77422727why?
>>77422725Roughly around an hour give or take, not bad, though I'd consider doing it more days per week unless your legs are particularly sore.
>>77422706You're not eating 1200 cals. Anyways just try fasting (or psmf) for 2-3 days a week.
>>77422706Height and Y chromosome status?
>>77422706As long as you're consistent on how you count calories, just eat less calories according to your messed up counting method.
>>77422706I wasn't losing weight on 1.5k cals so I started doing 47 hour fasts. Blew me out of that plateau
>>77422706Either you are lying, counting wrong or you started yesterday.
>>77422785/thread
>>77422706>he's rounding downtopkek
>>77422713try not spiking your insulin over and over by just eating once
>>77422706>>77422732>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1454084/>The failure of some obese subjects to lose weight while eating a diet they report as low in calories is due to an energy intake substantially higher than reported and an overestimation of physical activity, not to an abnormality in thermogenesis.
>>77422706it takes longer than 2 days. hope this helps.
>>77422785why do you think i'm lying?
>>77422814>someso not all of them?
>>77422706Bump it down to 800
>it can't be true because it goes against my CICO religion>why?>idk
>>77422874Yes my ESL friend, this was a study of "some" people rather than "all" people, as the latter would be impossible.
im not losing weight on 2600 cals and running 5 days a weekit's been a month
>>77422706>not losing weight on 1200 calsAnon single-handedly solved the problem of famine in Africa. No need to eat more than 1200 kcal/day as an african male if you eat the wrong (or right?) macros.
>>77422960It's hormones dipshit it's why GLPs make you eat less not the other way around.
>>77422965>non-sequitur replyBot?
>>77422971>He can't follow syllogisms.Esl?
>>77422973What "hormones dipshit GLPs" have to do with allegedly not losing weight at 1200 kcal as a male?
>>77422824/thread. How long have you actually been on this cut, OP?
you are losing fat still. trust the process
>>77422893see>>77422814It can't be true because it would violate basic laws of thermodynamics. Your body is not a perpetual motion machine.It's possible to not gain weight while eating at a caloric surplus because it's possible for your body to not digest food and just pass it though uneaten but it is not possible to not lose weight while eating at a caloric deficit. Your body needs a certain amount of energy to function and if you aren't getting that energy from food then the only other place it can come from is your fat stores. Your body can't just magically create energy from the air to keep you fat even though you're not eating.
>>77423044>it is not possible to not lose weight while eating at a caloric deficitand how do we know we're in a caloric deficit?
>>77422960Did you factor in BBC genetics?
>>77423002a month(i was 1400 last month and 1600 the previous)
>>77422706The logging is off then. Either there's an error in the nutrition listing as is often the case for meat (there being more fat and less protein than listed can significantly affect the caloric density) or there's an issue how closely you're logging things.
>>77422706>i'm not losing weight on 1200 calsSwitch to an all liquid diet.
>>77423081You estimate based on your height, weight, and activity level, and then you decrease your calorie intake until you start losing weight.
>>77423127and when do know i'm in a caloric deficit?
>>774229492600cals is alot, that's maintenance for a 6ft 165lb man running 5 days a week.
>>77423094how big is the logging error?
>>77423044Nta but i'm tired of this "thermodynamics" canned reply.Hormones easily influence your daily energy expenditure. Pin some T3 and your BMR will increase, even though obviously the drug you took doesn't contain any calories. Similarly, different types of food can cause different hormonal responses.In this case probably you're right because 1200kcal/d is an extreme deficit for most men but my autism couldn't let your retard shit go unchecked.
>>77423044>even though you're not eatingi'm eating 1200 calories
>>77423131When you start losing weight. Just come out with it man, I can see you're fishing for some kind of gotcha where you're gonna start ranting about how CICO is a lie so let's hear it already.
>>77423151>it is not possible to not lose weight while eating at a caloric deficit>how do we know we're in a caloric deficit?>When you start losing weight
>>77423141>I'm tired of asking people what 2+2 is and hearing this "4" canned replyYeah I bet you are, fatty. Lots of things influence your metabolic rate and none of that has anything to do with CICO. You have an amount of energy you expend each day and if you are eating more than that, you will gain weight. If you are eating less than that, you will lose weight.If you have some hormone disorder making you burn 200 calories less per day then you reduce your food intake by 200 calories to compensate. I realize that you desperately want to believe that your weight is out of your control but there is literally no possible way for you to not lose weight if you are eating less energy than you expend.
>>77423155That's it? Some weak ass semantic games? If you progressively eat less each day until your weight starts to decrease then that is the point at which you've reached a caloric deficit.Do you honestly think that if you ate 100 calories less every day, you would never reach a point where your weight started to drop? You could eat nothing and not lose weight? You must save a lot of money, not having to buy food.
>>77423156Anon I'm literally underweight. Also I never denied CICO, all I said is that food can influence energy expenditure, and this is well known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_dynamic_actionAnd yes, anon should probably be more honest about their food intake and keep reducing it until they lose weight.>I realize that you desperately want to believe that your weight is out of your controlSchizo
>>77423160>Some weak ass semantic games? You're saying that it's impossible to not lose weight when you're losing weight>you could eat nothing and not lose weight? If i eat nothing and lose weight what would that prove about CICO?that would also prove any other diet method then since that diet would be low fat, low carb, low protein, low junk food, etc. Arguably it proves more about fasting than CICO
>>77423156>If you have some hormone disorder making you burn 200 calories less per dayyou think that's how hormone disorders work?
IF the sign of being in a calorie deficit is that you're losing weightthen the sentence>you can't not lose weight in a calorie deficitcan be rephrased you can't not lose weight when you're losing weightOryou will lose weight when you lose weight
>>77423171>You're saying that it's impossible to not lose weight when you're losing weightNo, I'm telling you that if you progressively reduce your caloric intake you will eventually reach a point at which you are taking in less than you're expending and this is the point at which you will begin to lose weight.You'll never lose the weight if you don't start being honest with yourself.>>77423173>you think that's how hormone disorders work?I was exaggerating for the example. In reality, hormone disorders have much less dramatic effects on metabolic rate and weight loss/gain. Like the study here >>77422814every time people who claim that their hormonal disorder is causing them to be immune to thermodynamics have been put in a room and had their food intake strictly monitored, we find that their hormonal imbalance has a very small effect on their metabolic rate, significantly less than a 200 calorie change in either direction.
>>77423215>a point at which you are taking in less than you're expendingand how do we know that we're at that point?
>>77423222If you read the rest of that sentence you quoted then I bet you can figure it out all by yourself.
>>77422753Are rolling 72 fasts actually sustainable?
fat people really think this
>>77423222I'm legitimately curious what point you guys are trying to make. Like walk me through exactly what you think would happen if you started counting calories and ate 100 less each day. Like what happens when you're down to 800, 700, 600 calories a day? You're saying that I wouldn't lose weight even if I got down to 500 calories a day?
>>77423226so the sentence>you will eventually reach a point at which you are taking in less than you're expending and this is the point at which you will begin to lose weightcan be rephrased>you will eventually reach a point at which you are losing weight and this is the point at which you will begin to lose weight
>>77423233If you're a disingenuous fatty looking for an excuse to avoid personal responsibility then yes, you could rephrase any sentence to fit your delusions. But trying so hard to cope with these retarded semantic games is just making you look like a fool.
>>77423232Your obesity brain/body can override weight loss attempts as they literally desire to retain fat by any means necessary
>>77423237Doesn't my body need energy to function? If I'm not eating anything and not using any stored fat for energy then where is the energy coming from?
>>77423238What you mean? Your brains/body is holding the fat back. Theres other places to get energy than your fat cells
>>77423240
>>77423240>Theres other places to get energy than your fat cellsSuch as?
>>77423232Does eating 0 calories and losing weight prove CICO is correct? Or does it prove the Keto diet? or does it prove the low fat diet? Or does it prove the vegan diet?What does eating nothing and losing weight prove about CICO?
>>77423123Dios mio
>>77423238>Doesn't my body need energy to function?how much does your body need? Do you know?
>>77423245>Liver glycogen>Muscle glycogen>Skeletal muscle tissue>Digestive tract lining (smooth muscle)>Cardiac muscle (heart)>Intercostal muscles>Cellular organelles>Cellular misfolded proteins >Lactate (recycled via Cori cycle)>Glycerol (from cell membrane phospholipids)>Collagen>Skin tissue>Bone marrow>Aeronutrients
>>77423236>you could rephrase any sentence to fit your delusionsDo you object to the rephrasing?It's literally what you're saying"you will lose weight when you lose weight"
>>77423087you are a 4'11" woman then and didnt include that info in the op on a site full of 5'7" men why?
>>77423266what advice would you give to a 4'11 woman who isn't losing weight on 1200 calories?
>>77422706Don't listen to these chuds anon. My grandma had something similar. She counted all her calories and exercised regularly but she just couldn't lose wait. So eventually she went to the doctor and they found out that there was a nuclear fusion reaction in her intestines that was generating energy and converting it to calories. Even when her body didn't have enough food she would just spontaneously generate more energy and put on weight. Its actually really common i would recommend just chopping off a limb if you want to lose weight really quickly.
>>77423272>nuclear fusion reaction in her intestines that was generating energy and converting it to calorieswhat type of calories?
>>77423265Brother, you can twist it around however you like, clearly you're here in either extremely bad faith or just pure schizophrenia. I can't take you seriously when you're out here saying that your brain can override weight loss attempts>>77423237by getting nutrition from the air>>77423255Like shouldn't you be on tumblr or something? I don't know if this board is the right place for you. People like you have always existed, researchers have repeatedly said>well this person says they're following CICO and eating at a deficit and they're not losing weight, let's do a study and find out what's going onand in every case they find that these people were either lying or stupid.>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1454084/>The failure of some obese subjects to lose weight while eating a diet they report as low in calories is due to an energy intake substantially higher than reported and an overestimation of physical activity, not to an abnormality in thermogenesis.The shit you're claiming has literally never not once in the history of human civilization ever been proven to be true. You yourself would become instantly famous around the world if you were to publish a study proving that CICO is a lie and people can simply choose to not lose weight and get their energy from "aeronutrients" instead. Go on man, easy path to being a millionaire.
>>77423285>Brother, you can twist it around however you likeWhat am i twisting?you're saying1. you know you're in a calorie deficit when you lose weight2. you will lose weight when you're in a calorie deficitso that means you're saying "you will lose weight when you lose weight"
>>77423255Don't most of those things have weight, though? So like even if I'm not losing weight from fat cells, wouldn't I still be losing weight from my muscle and bones? Doesn't make sense that my body would start breaking down bone marrow for energy before breaking down fat cells, does it?
>>77423287Yeah, I'm not playing this game with you any more. I hope you lose the weight, buddy.
>>77423285>and in every case they find that these people were either lying or stupid.>Group 1 consisted of nine women and one man with a history of diet resistanceSo "every case" = 10 people
>>77423228if youre fat yes
>>77423287Anon, why don't you do an experiment where you fast for a few days then report back, to eliminate the possibility of you miscounting your calories rtc
>>77423289>I hope you lose the weightbecause then i would be losing weight!because losing weight = losing weightthanks for your great insight
>>77423293how would fasting eliminate that?
>>77423288They don't weigh the same
>>77423299Sure but they still have weight. If I'm not getting enough energy from my food and my body has to get it someplace else then I should still be losing weight. Shit muscle weighs more than fat so I should be losing weight even faster.I just don't see how this turns into not losing weight at all.
>>77423295Let's suppose you say you eat 1200 cals when in fact you're eating much higher, then eating nothing would create an undisputable calorie deficit which you can't misjudge
>>77423305and that would tell me what about me counting calories wrong?
>>77423302does losing weight prove CICO?
>>77423307Firstly im not that other anon you were arguing with , but it would prove that you're either making errors with your counting or your baseline expenditure, or both
>>77423308I mean you said that CICO isn't real because you don't lose weight but now you're saying that you will lose weight if you eat less but it doesn't count as weight loss or something because it's not coming from fat cells?I legit don't know what you're trying to tell me. Why don't you just explain how it works and stop being so evasive?
>>77423310are you saying if i eat nothing for a week i can calculate how many calories i can eat on a diet?
>>77423311i think there was a chain of two different postersbut i personally is suggesting to you that losing weight on 0 calories doesn't prove CICOJust as eating 500 calories and losing weight doesn't prove CICOIf i ate 20000 calories and gained weight it doesn't prove CICOSo the arguement "what if you just starved?" is dumb and proves nothingfx is says nothing about how much weight i should be losing on 1200 caloriesBut i know this is a common CICO midwit take that you guys seem to think makes sense
>>77423318Ok so if CICO doesn't explain why people gain or lose weight then what does? If I'm gaining or losing weight, what's causing it?
>>77422706Insulin prevents the breakdown of fat. Try intermittent fasting. It lets your body completely get rid of the insulin in your bloodstream. If that doesn't work then your thyroid is completely fucked and you need to go to a doctor. If your thyroid is fucked it can kill you in a few years so don't put it off, but most likely intermittent fasting will sort you out or if you have the willpower do a 2-3 day fast.
>>77423312Yeah you could reverse engineer it. Don't eat for 7 days, refeed for a couple to reintroduce water/glyco weight, then measure your loss, times it by 7,700 calories (1 kg fat) then divide by 7 days to reveal what your actual deficit is
>>77423320diet, hormones, genetics, water retention, muscle mass, weight training etc can effect how much weight leaves your body
>>77423333are you saying no liquids on the fast?
>>77423340Only zero calorie drinks
>>77423323>Insulin prevents the breakdown of fatdoes insulin resistance effect it?
>>77423340No drink water you will lose water weight as your body stores emergency carbs (glycogen) in water in your cells. When your body uses the glycogen it also gets rid of the water. When you start eating again you will gain back that weight and you can find out exactly how much fat was burned. That being said this method is unreliable and for the first 2-3 days of a fast your metabolism is massively boosted.
>>77423348Insulin resistence means your body needs more insulin to do the same function of controlling blood sugar levels. Meaning you have a lot more insulin in your blood preventing you from burning fat. If you stay on a caloric deficit it will eventually be depleted. Fasting is faster and more effective. I recommend starting out with a 10 hour eating window for a 3 days then shrinking it down to 6 hours. The rest of the day eat nothing.
>>77423357Also to add be very consistent. Same time everyday.
>>77422706Then cut down to 1000.>>77422714It's possible she's a 4'11" elderly woman.
>>77423335So if I want to lose weight, how do I do it if eating less doesn't work?
>>77423255The glycogens in this list will last you maybe a few hours at most. As for the other stuff, dear god, you would see your piss become blood red.
>>77423131Because flesh has a minimum energy requirement to stay alive. If you a 180lb man 1200 calories is 100% a deficit for you.
>>77423368How many calorosis are you eating?
>>77423368Eat nothing.
>>77423381>CICO isn't real but if you don't eat any calories you'll lose weight>>77423378Does it matter? I thought eating less calories wouldn't make me lose weight.
>>77422814this is why fasting is superior no way to fuck up intake if there's no intake
>>77423399You would be having calories if you fast still so it's CICO
You’re not eating 1200, I did 1100-1200 for a month and lost 20lbs, the scale was going down everyday and you can feel the hunger/weakness.
Stop spiking insulin and cortisol. Jesus Christ
>>77423141Hormones matter if you're a 160cm 45kg woman, someone like that would likely not lose much at 1200 kcap a day
>>77422785Or he/she/it is under 3 foot tall.
>>77422810But muh protein absortion
>insulin spikesThis doesn’t pervert weight loss…
>>77423255You forgot the brain
>>77422706If you're eating carbs, that's the problem. CICO doesn't work.
>>77422981Your inability to accurately measure your intake is a skill issue.
>the ketoschizo is at it agane
>>77423141Midwit #253646689 getting lost in the details of CICO. Yeah no shit retard, there's a million factors that impact metabolism. You control the calories in. There's a whole lot out of your control, and some within your control, that governs calories out. Anybody with any sort of sense and some discipline can figure it out from there. So what's your problem?
>>77423973Lmao
>>77422706are you a disabled midget or just too retarded to count calories?I already know the answer
>>77424061so it's CICO*
>>77423381I eat nothing for days and still look like this
