I have an identical twin brother. He is lean. I am fat. We measured how much we eat and the calorie measurement is identical. The dietary fat, protein, and carbs are all identical. We also collected our faeces and incinerated it and it also had an identical calorie measurement.What is causing me to be obese while my brother is lean?
>>77502463I know the solution to this riddle. What would your brother say is the reason? And in what order would he carry the grain, goose and fox to the doors with the lady and the tiger?
>>77502486My brother says it is hormones. I also say it is hormones.What do you say?
Wow the trooned wog has a twin? And they collected their feces?
Something here smells north of 40
>>77502554Amerigolems tend to write feces because they get confused by too many letters. They also write thru instead of through.
>we collected our feces togetherThe only true part of ops larp
>gut biomeRead the study with identical twins (that started with lab rats), and unfuck yourself. I guess maybe ask your brother for a transplant lol
>>77502560>they get confused by too many lettersThey did it to save money on telegrams that charged by the letter.
>>77502463This is that keto fag at it again with another "true hypothetical"
>>77502591What do you not like about truth?
>>77502562What study?
>>77502463You're lying about that study again. The fat rats ate more, it's not complicated.
>>77505461No they didn't, moron.They ate identical calories. Excreted identical calories. One group was obese the other was lean.
>>77502463Let me guess, he’s straight and you’re gay or the other way around?
>>77502463>insulin is a fat storage hormone that signals to adipose tissue to growLmao. Just lmao
>>77505545>Lmao. Just lmao
you started at different weights.
>>77502463Why are you so determined to promote keto?
>>77505615Why are other people so determined to promote Sugar Information Inc's "new concept in weight control" a.k.a. CICO?
>>77505620What the fuck is cico? I think carbs are fine if you want my opinion. Legumes, beans, lentils, all that are perfectly good. I'm iffy on rice, bread and regular traditional carbs but they are mostly fine in my opinion. I think shilling for fat is retarded and demonizing basic carbs is even more retarded without substanical proof.
>>77502531Is this a bait. He probably either has more muscles and hence his calorie expenditure is higher or he walks more during the day or dose more activities.
>>77505743Our physical activity and muscle mass are the same.
>>77502463His insulin levels are simply much lower than yours
What was the starting point? If you were already obese in the beginning you can't blame it on cico that you are still fat.
>>77505804Yes this is the correct answer.
>>77505819We both started out lean and healthy.
>>77505819Huh? What are you talking about. Even if he was fat before and they now match there calories, accoring to the CICO retards he should be losing weight because as an obese person he has a much higher basal metabolic rate. It's clearly a hormonal issue
>>77505804insulin can't store sugar you don't intake. is it easier and more precise to control the amount of sugar that enters your body (things that get converted to sugar, more accurately) or adjust the amount of insulin your body creates somehow? much of which, as you claim, is in response to the aforementioned sugars?so if you're designing a control scheme for weight control, it's obviously best to control the sugar input. and luckily, the conversion of other macros to sugar is a chemical process with a maximum yield, so you can always reduce your input low enough to lose weightif you want to convert "calories" to "maximum moles of sugar yield by human metabolic processes", you can do that, but it reveals you're just being pendantic to push the blame towards "hormones" (mostly out of your control, so "not your fault" that you can't lose weight, you're on keto, you're controlling hormones the best you can) instead of "calories" (admitting you just eat too much)
>>77505852You can take drugs that suppress insulin. Or just quit eating carbs.
>>77505878where and how do i get them
>>77505878You think you can't store fat without carbs just because insulin is not involved? And you're lecturing everyone else like you know shit?
>>77505907ever seen an obese type 1 diabetic?
>>77505893Please don't take the drug that makes you effectively a diabetic and have the high blood sugar literally tear you apart.
>>77502463I don't believe you are effectively counting your calories if you are fat. If you've been counting your calories long enough to know this information, you have cared enough to not be fat. So clearly you just counted a day or two and assume that's what you do everyday even though you probably drink sugary drinks and have off the cuff snacks all the time but you don't count.
>>77505912Yes. Like 30% are. And this is still your dumbass scenario of medicating yourself into diabetes, not a realistic diet.
>>77505918*untreatened* type 1 diabetic
>>77505907Yes, you cannot store fat without insulin. See pic related: >>77505878Also as mentioned type 1 diabetics prove it. Type 1 diabetics can underdose their insulin to eat as much as they want and not get fat. It's called "diabulimia"
>>77505915It doesn't matter how accurately you estimate your calorie intake. Calorie restriction doesn't lead to sustained weight loss. It just destroys metabolism and causes weight regain.
>>77505922Those literally die. You ever see a fat starvation victim?
>>77505928You have now moved the goalposts to "literally no insulin at all." Untreated Type 1 diabetics die even on a zero-carb diet. Keto does not save them. You haven't proven anything.
>>77505798How can it be the same if you are fat. Also do you work the same job and go everywhere together. Surely it cannot be exactly same level of activity. Did you track steps on the phone? Do you sit more? Do you spend more time on pc? Are you two twins who do everything together? There has to be an outlier here
>>77505922Wait, so the people who actually literally have direct control over their insulin get fat? 30% of them? And you propose people without that should rely on insulin control rather than intake control?
>>77505932starvation means no food at all. Someone can technically be in a caloric deficit and still be obese
>>77505941>How can it be the same if you are fat.Hormonal differences.
>>77505942Type 1 diabetics can reduce insulin dose to lose weight. It's called diabulimia.The only factor in being fat or lean is insulin.
>>77505942You think diabetics practice perfect "insulin control"? All they care is not to die 24/7. They eat the same shit 99% of americans eat and just dope themselves up with insulin afterwards or before
>>77502463So, what are the ways to adjust insulin, insulin response, and insulin adaptivity? I've heard walk after a big meal.Another is go low carb, or keto.For me it is paying attention to glycemic load.Eating higher fiber carbs, and combine with meat, and veg.
>>77505958You have most of the big ones.Others include:- if you eat carbs with a meal eat them last (i.e. dessert)- no snacking- fasting- no powdered or liquid carbsThe thing about fiber doesn't work if you blend it into a smoothie for example. It's food structure not just the presence of fiber.
>>77505958>>77505963Also don't take night shift work because that leads to higher insulin. Which seems to suggest that sleep quality in general is important. Have a good sleep schedule and don't look at screens or expose yourself to blue light at night. Don't drink caffeine in the afternoon. Et cetera.
>>77505956So if they didn't just inject a bunch of insulin, if they wanted to control their weight, they'd have to adjust the amount of insulin the inject precisely based on the amount of food they eat? So they have to track their food intake and make sure it's appropriate anyway? Sounds like despite your protests >>77505852was spot on, even with precise doseanle insulin control that everyone else doesn't have.
>>77505951This leads to diabetic ketoacidosis. Sounds like just not eating as much is still superior to insulin control.>>77505948>starvation means no food at allIt doesn not necessarily mean literal no food, just not enough. And until fat reserves have been burned through, the body will utilize those. So you can't die of too low energy intake while fat. But as has now been pointed out, you CAN die due to too low insulin while fat, even with sufficient energy intake. Again, proving which method is superior for weight control (and safer).
>>77505991The point is that CICO is false. Hormonal theory is correct.
>>77505977Diabetics try to mimick a healthy pancreas by injecting exogenous insulin.So just like "healthy" people, if they eat too many carbs they also will get fat.If they don't inject the insulin their elevated blood glucose fucks up all their cells and organs and they die, but they won't store fat and even lose fat. So what do you choose?
>>77505995But we just proved that regardless of hormones being the mechanism underneath, energy tracking and control is the best way to make use of it. That's CICO proved. You didn't even rebut anything, just chanted a mantra at me.
>>77505997You conflated carbs and glucose again. They can get fat on keto in that scenario too, just like someone with a healthy pancreas.
>>77506004make use of what?
>>77506016deez nuts fuckboi
>>77506008if you're gaining weight on keto you're cheating and lying to yourself
>>77502463>What is causing me to be obese while my brother is lean?Your dad didn't molest him, so his hormones didn't get fucked.>>77505963>>77505958>>77505970Fasting and fixing sleep got me to lose 40lbs. I still need to lose 40 more, but I have too much college and late night sessions. Finally graduating this fall thoughbeit.
>>77505930>42 KB JPG> >>77505915 (You) #> It doesn't matter how accurately you estimate your calorie intake. Calorie restriction doesn't lead to sustained weight loss. It just destroys metabolism and causes weight regain.This is nonsensical cope. The laws of thermodynamics do not care about your metabolism. If you are eating more than the energy you are expending , you will get fat. If you are eating less, you will lose weight. The only variable is if your metabolism makes you feel tired or not. A non-issue in the equation. Your metabolism is not beating the laws of thermodynamics. You did not discover infinite energy.
>>77506051>muh thermodynamicsThermodynamics say nothing about CAUSALITY (i.e. WHY a fat cell grows or shrinks). It's just a DESCRIPTION of a system you retarded faggot. If a fat cell grows then of course it takes in more energy (calories) than it expands. The question is WHY it happens, or in other words, WHAT triggers the fat cell to grow? Does the fat cell somehow KNOW how much calories you have consumed in a day and keeps track of incoming and outgoing calories? surely not.Everything in our bodies is regulated through hormones that signal cells WHAT TO DO
>>77502531If you have taken a fuck ton more antibiotics than your brother that could do it.>>77502562>gut biomeAntibiotic use can lead to a reduction in certain types of bacteria in your gut microbiome, affecting how well you break down food and which nutrients are absorbed from it. You could try probiotics or foods like sour kraut and kimchi.
>>77506057The fuck are you on about. If your body is storing energy you get fat. Just don't give it more energy then it needs to function on a daily basis. It's fucking simple. Stop making excuses with this retarded shit.
>>77506057excess calories trigger the fat cells to grow dingus
>>77506078he's some weird mix of schizo and wanna be professor of things he refuses to speak about except "muh hormones"
>>77506079how? what's the biochemical mechanism?
>>77502463Deception, on someone's part.
>>77506085>he refuses to speak about except "muh hormones"Is that so?
>>77506086I'm not copy pasting a simple Google search just to appease your dumb ass
>>77506090nigga if you have a pill that melts fat into energy you'd drown in pussy and money
>>77506026Sounds exactly like what CICOers say. We've seen plenty of people who got fat on keto or carnivore, though, so demonstrably false
>>77506091>excess calories trigger the fat cellsAnon, I...
>>77506101you won't belive this
>>77506114I'm not taking that jew shit
>>77506103He only understands the insulin pathway to fat storage (and can't even make logical conclusions based on that, as this thread demonstrates). He thinks you literally can't store fat on ketosis, as if your body can't just store excess dietary fat directly in fat cells as fatty acids even with low insulin. It's both scientifically and anecdotally demonstrated.
>>77506057You seem to think we don't understand the why, the how. But the fact is everyone else, both those who understand it and those that don't, cares about results, how to model and effect the desired change. "Insulin" is not a model, "CICO" is. As avoiding energy surplus is always necessary to avoid gaining or maintaining weight, even on ketosis (because yes, you can gain fat in ketosis), tracking and controlling energy balance will always be beneficical. And regardless of complaints about the exactitude of CI or CO, thermodynamics always ensures there is a known upper limit to how much fat can be gained for a given energy input. So if keto helps you control your hunger so you can just eat intuitively without having to think about the underlying physics, that's great for you, plenty of people here agree. But we also think you're annoying for constantly belligerently insisting that hormones are magic and not just one facet of a large system that everyone else has no trouble predicting with the established model, calling us retards when you're the one with some large gaps in your understanding.
>>77502463did you guys ever suck each other off
>>77505956>They eat the same shit 99% of americans eat and just dope themselves up with insulin afterwards or beforeDiabetics often try to be careful with what they eat, but having witnessed it myself, it often doesn't matter, their blood sugar still goes crazy so they just have to take the meds. Eating right though can reduce their blood sugar swings though.
>>77506004The OP scenario proves that energy estimates are pointless.
>>77506078>energyEnergy of what?>fatSo "if your body is storing fat you get fat". Do you think that's a meaningful observation? Do you think it identifies what causes your body to store fat aka get fat?
>>77506176You can also store energy as fat when udndereating. Depends and WHAT your body does with the ingested energy. Thermodynamics tells you nothing about whats actually, biochemically is happening in the body. Again, it's just a description of a system, no arrow of causality there.
This is a fake scenario but it’s well documented in the medical literature that what actually drives fat loss is TDEE and there’s a lot that can influence that including, yes, insulin.
>>77507268actually it's just insulin but thanks
>>77507268It's a real scenario taken from a real scientific study where all those variables were well controlled.
>>77505465Did they control for energy expenditure?
>>77507430What do you mean by that?
I eat less, I lose weight. I eat more, I gain weight. I don't care about anyone else
>>77507567Post body
>>77502531Who knew that when you eat carbs your body forces a needle full of insulin in your abdomen. Remarkable
>>77502596I'm on a cut right now just doing cico lol. And I am almost to my goal wait. A lot of people overcomplicate things because they want to either feel special or they don't have the willpower to just do what they have to do. It's not hard. At all. Lifting is not hard it's fun this is a aristocratic activity lol. Being swole is a sign of affluence at this point. Why don't you enjoy your workouts? Does the thought of sucking on goth feets not carry you? I just don't get it. Anything except to try... Lol faggot I'm drunk and at the gym what's your excuse retard got another person to splash with acid. I'm gonna kill that guy btw
>>77507731Just imagine a goth feets in lace socks if u can't go to the gym after that Im done.
>>77502463no you didn't.
>>77507699This but unironically.
>>77507737>He fell for the goth girl psyopNGMI
>>77506846So describe to us a different descriptive model, then, instead of just saying "insulin" again.>>77507275Nevermind. Just "insulin", I see.
>>77507972Insulin is the fat storage hormone.
>>77507980Do you know what a model is? You're a retard who walks up to a bunch of people catapulting rocks with relatively good accuracy and going "um, you know, Newtonian physics doesn't actually describe how that functions underneath. In fact, it's entirely incorrect based on our understanding of quantum physics" and thinking you're the smart one and we don't get it. Your big fat boulder will never go anywhere while you keep coping.
>>77508001Insulin goes up. Fat storage goes up.
>>77502463Homeostasis His is working properly, yours is fucked up and your subconscious essentially thinks you're way leaner than you actually are so it fights any attempt to lose it. Just water fast retard, it's the body's reset switch
>>77508021Don't see any actual numbers there, don't know how I'd be able to use this to make predictions. Seems faulty anyway. It suggests I can simply inject you with increasing amounts of insulin until you reach 600 lbs, even without any food intake at all. You stand by that?
>>77502463>We measured how much we eat and the calorie measurement is identical.I've read one of keto schizos studys and the keto group was allowed to eat as few calories as they wanted while the non keto group was told to eat 1600. the keto group ended up eating 1400 and lost more weight due to less calories.
Are Albanians considered white
>>77508105Low carb dieters lose more body fat even when eating more calories.
>>77502463I remember that thread and that anon was BTFO by the comments.Curious that you edited out how many responses he got.
>>77508560You're lying
>>77507458Did both the pellet and powder group burn the same number of calories? In other words did both groups exercise the same amount?
>>77508579Same activity levels. Obviously they didn't both have the same energy expenditure since one ended up fat and the other ended up lean.
>>77508546the key lies in the detail. VLCK (very low carb keto) with macro ratio (C:F:P) of 10:63:28 and LF (low fat) with 60:25:15.both groups have a 500kcal calorie deficit.The low fat diet is superior to the keto one because, that group has lost almost no muscle. keto tards lose 6.5kg of BW of which 2kg is muscle.
>>77508655The low carb diet was superior because it resulted in greater loss of body fat despite eating higher calories.>that group has lost almost no muscleLean body mass includes water.
>>77507961I have one dumbfuck virgin
>>77508588>they didn't both have the same energy expenditure since one ended up fat and the other ended up lean.That implies they had different activity levels.
>>77502463>>77502531I've seen both of these pictures before. You never had a twin brother. And this thread is a lie. And you're gay. And fat.and cico is real.
>>77502463>cico is fake and gayso you're saying that if you stop eating altogether you won't lose weight?
>>77509209No. It means they had different hormones.
>>77502463why are you, the keto shill, and moyoxte, the vegan shill, still so fucking fat? Maybe because you take in too many calories despite not eating carbohydrates or eating animal products?
>>77502531this condition in this photo you spam doesn't happen to non diabetics
>>77509243It does.
>>77509251no it doesn't...you and the vegan shill are both obese and spam here because you're also mentally ill
>>77502486fpbp
>>77509263Yes, it does.
>>77509271insulin induced lipohypertrophy does not happen to non diabetics
>>77509273You can't get fat without insulin.
>>77509292your body breaks down excess protein and excess calories generally as carbohydrates so go ahead eat 3,000+ calories from fat daily and watch yourself become insulin resistant IE diabetic
>>77506114Retard. This works by reducing appetite so fatfucks eat less. Once again, CICO
>>77506829>Energy of what?Energy is energy, retard.Whether fat or any other macro, or even gasoline as you posted previously, calories are simply a measure of the energy contained within a substance. It's not even right to say "contained within" because the energy fundamentally is the substance.Thermodynamics has been a field of scientific study for more than two centuries now.
>>77509438>Energy is energyThat's like saying "weight is weight". Weight of what?
>>77502463Fatties will do anything except put the fork down
>>77509209>>77509229>energy expenditure >different activity levels >ketoschizo: nooo they teleported themselves and any objects they carried, no work was involved, thermodynamics is not real
>>77509443what kind of sematic shit are you playing. Eat one box of no cow vegan protein bars a day and or eat 1 pound of london broil a day or better yet eat only 1 big mac meal with a bag of lettuce a day and watch you become emaciated. Eat 3x the amount of any of that while being sedentary and watch you become fat and insulin resistant. Why you carnitards, ketolards, and vegan subhumans, all 3 of you, that infest this board can't except calories are real is beyond me
>>77509423Wrong you faggot.
>>77509443>weight is weightThat's correct, weight is a force. Doesn't really matter what combination of mass x acceleration generates the force.
>>77509475You can't have weight divorced from a thing. So whenever someone talks about "weight" you should wonder "weight of what?". Just like when calorietards are talking about calories without context you should ask "calories of what?"
>>77509471>Reduces body mass because eats lessIt's still CICO you retarded faggot.
>>77509464>eat carbs>get fat>avoid carbs>get leanIt's that simple.
>>77509482>You can't have weight divorced from a thing.Actually that's exactly how engineering and applied science is done.The gravitational weight of an object is represented by an equivalent force acting downwards at the centre of mass. External forces (any load at all really) are represented by vectors of equivalent magnitude and direction. The actual real-world phenomena are irrelevant once you have the correct loading.Forces are forces.Energy is energy.Calories are calories.QED
>>77509501Show me a photo of weight.
>>77509485the significant decline in dietary carbohydrates almost certainly lead to a drastic reduction in overall calorie intake
>>77509528No. You can eat more calories without carbs and lose more weight. See pic related: >>77508546
>>77509531they ate more calories than the low fat group overall but were they in a caloric surplus? Likely not
>>77509528Lower calorie intake into her fat cells, that is. FTFY. Because lower insulin.
>>77509542>lower calorie intakeThere it is
>>77509538Define "caloric surplus" in a way that makes it distinct from "weight gain".
>>77509524Show me a photo of a hormone
>>77509542>into her fat cells>Because lower insulinThere it is.
>>77509557Sorry... "what" into her fat cells??
>>77509550caloric surplus = weight gain
>>77509563energy
>>77509567How does this happen? What's the endocrinological mechanism?
>>77509555Easy. Calorietards (you) are really stupid.
>>77509567Then "caloric surplus" can't cause "weight gain" because both are the effect.This is why CICO is false. You're just using different language to say the effect. You are not identifying cause.The cause of "caloric surplus" aka "weight gain" is hormones.
>>77509574yes and that energy from food is called calories>>77509583semantics... A calorie surplus causes weight gain. Weight gain is the effect from being in a calorie surplus
>>77509589Or alternatively >weight gain causes weight gain>weight gain causes calorie surplus>calorie surplus causes calorie surplusIt's all the same thing. The effect. None of this identifies cause.
>>77507277No they weren’t lol. It’s impossible to control metabolic rate. >>77507275The reason that happens is because it changes your TDEE. It will actually block energy expenditure from fat.
>>77509602Hormones control metabolic rate.
>>77505958The most straightforward and clinically proven way is just fasting. 36-48 isn’t hours is optimal. 12-36 hours is okay. If you’re not fasting at least 12 hours a day you’re basically not fasting at all and that’s why your insulin response is fucked up. Americans eat too late and too early and that’s one of the major reasons they’re so fat.
How accurate are those calorie labels? What if I overeat by 20 kcal every day (basically one swallow of food)? I will be obese in 20 years.I also can't be in a deficit all my life because then I will die. Something doesn't add up here. Do I need do oscillate from too much to too little? If that's so, how do animals do it?
>>77509606Sure but OP is suggesting metabolic rate is equivalent. If the scenario you’re describing is the case that can’t be true.
>>77509609yea most Americans are NOT eating too much they're just eating at the wrong times. Give it up big guy you're turning into the vegan shill>>77509594like here holy circular logic and reductive reasoning. You said a whole bunch of nothing then tried to change the subject
>>77509615That's not what the OP suggests at all.The fat group had slower metabolism because their food was powdered. Powdered food raises insulin. Insulin lowers metabolism.
>>77509610Accurate enough to be reliable but it’s worth noting not every calorie you put down your gullet is a calorie that goes into the thermodynamic system though. The reason fiber helps people lose weight for example is not only because it blunts insulin response and controls appetite but because it basically shuttles additional food through the digestive system before it can become “calories in”.
>>77509616Define "calorie surplus" in a way that distinguishes it from "weight gain". If they are the same thing (they are) then one cannot cause the other. Because they are the same thing. A thing can't cause itself.
>>77509616They’re doing both. You cannot deny that it takes 12 hours to deplete liver glycogen and burn much body fat at all. Until those 12 hours your fat burning is negligible. Almost all of the energy burn is coming from recent dietary sources.
>>77509622>calorie surpluseating more than you burn off>what distinguishes it from weight gainIn the case of single digit body fat individuals being in a small surplus is recommended to prevent muscle catabolism. Most Americans are sedentary and have excessive body fat with minimal muscle/lean mass
>>77509630If someone calculates their TDEE and eats more than their TDEE but doesn't gain weight were they in a calorie surplus?
>>77509618Retard. The study implies food composition influenced through some mechanism, possibly hormones, changes in energy expenditure but OP is asserting the caloric intake and expenditure are identical. Read it again. Presumably the mice had lower TDEE but OP doesn’t get that. He thinks hormones just made fat appear out of thin air.
>>77509637there muscles used the excess calories to prevent the breakdown of muscle tissues and once you get to 10.001% body fat, if you're genetically blessed that can be brought down to 8.001% but most men need to be at least 8% body fat for proper hormone function, you ironically enough will just start gaining fat if you stay in the surplus
>>77509647their* muscles. honestly just shut the fuck up ketolard I am not going to continue arguing in circle with you
>>77509641The food composition and calorie intake are identical. Same calories. Same carbs. Same fat. Same protein.Powdered food raises insulin more than solid food. Therefore the powdered food group became fat despite eating identical calories.
>>77509647So is someone who doesn't gain any weight in calories surplus or not? How do you know?
>>77509666Jfc dude. Are you illiterate or what?If you still don’t get it, answer this question: “We measured how much we eat and the calorie measurement is identical. The dietary fat, protein, and carbs are all identical. We also collected our faeces and incinerated it and it also had an identical calorie measurement.”Does this imply the energy expenditure is identical? Yes or no?
>>77509675Nobody said the energy expenditure was identical. One group ended up obese because they were eating powdered food. The powdered food raises insulin more than the solid food. Insulin lowers metabolism.
>>77509669they gain muscle mass slowly too IE gain weight but if their body fat gets too high and they stay in a surplus too long they start gaining fat mass how is this is so hard to understand
>>77509682What if someone gains no weight. Neither muscle or adipose mass. Then are they in a "calorie surplus"? Why or why not?
>>77509730>what about this hypothetical that is virtually impossiblenope not gonna bite anymore enjoy your 80% fat diet that totally won't make you fat once you exceed your TDEE constantly
>>77509622>>77509637>>77509669>>77509730All this hypothetical "what if" horseshit when actual room calorimeters exist. Come back when you've eaten 5000 kcal of fat and protein a day under those conditions for a few weeks, instead of doing dumbass LARPs like in the OP.
>>77509740For real, with stupid posts like >>77509622 (balance of oxygen consumption vs carbon dioxide production, there you go), it's clear despite seething against CICO because it doesn't say anything about the actual biochemistry of fat storage (of course it doesn't, it's not supposed, it's an model based on the observed behavior of all the biomechanics involved, yes including, but not limited to insulin), he doesn't understand the chemistry or any of its implications, even with just his single pet hormone.
>>77509679So you think what I quoted does not imply the expenditure is identical?
>>77509765Is faeces the only form of CO in "CICO"?
>>77509577That's not the molecule itself, retard.If you just want to look at its package, step on the scale and you'll see weight. In your case, lots of it.
>>77508667>Fell for the psyop SUPER DUPER hard
>>77509814I've been fucking a 10/10 goth for like ten years faggo
>>77509821Sure, bud
Are you all just whacking each other off with all this science bullshit? Just eat more or less. It’s really that simple. And calorie tracking is for consistency but you can also just eyeball food and eat consistent meals, just more or less of it as needed. It’s not that hard.
>>77509732>nooo that's impossibleCalorietard.
>>77509786Oh you’re retarded. If you have a system and you add a certain amount of calories to a system, and then a certain lesser amount is processed as waste, what happens to the rest? Does it vanish? Perhaps it’s burned?
>>77510125You seem confused about "CO" and "expenditure" and other basic concepts. Your body can do many things with the calories you intake and don't pass as faeces. Can you tell me if storing calories in fat cells counts as "expenditure"?
>>77502463humans aren't rodents
>>77510759Do rodents obey the laws of physics?
>>77510773physics isn't what's being discussed here
>>77510874CICO claims to be physics. Therefore rodents are sufficient for disproving CICO. If it's false in rodents it is false everywhere.
>>77510878>CICO claims to be physicswas it John Cico that said that?>Therefore rodents are sufficient for disproving CICO.no because as I mentioned humans are not rodents
>>77510909Everyone who believes CICO says it is just a law of physics.
>>77510922
>>77511129Wait, it's all math?
>>77511146Literally everything in life can be represented by mathematical formulae
>>77511146Yep. Mathematically there are things we haven't discovered yet, like anti-matter and memristor.>>77511238AI Datacenters are unironically being made to compute mathematical formulas that will turn more people into good goy debt slaves.
