Riddle me this /fit/If CICO is real, and there are roughly seven thousand kilocalories in each kilogram of fat, if I ate seven thousand calories more than the calories I burnt over a long enough time period I would gain 1 kilogram of fat.Yet if I drank small sips of gasoline daily (easily tens of thousands of extra kilocalories) I wouldn't gain weight?Make it make sense.>BUT... BUT... BUT... GASOLINE IS SPECIAL!!! IT'S NOT A FOOD!!!You're so close to understanding.
Is this a joke or do you really think drinking gasoline is safe?
>>77507245i'm memeing for engagement. I am sexually frustrated and need some community and attention. Please engage with my bait
>>77507245In small enough quantities, yes. It would be very small sips.>>77507250>can't respond so starts falseflaggingkek
>>77507242Good question. Let's put the toxicity aspect aside, and treat this as a gedankenexperimentWhy doesnt gasoline make you fat?
>>77507242you don't have a mechanism of internal combustion silly
>>77507245Gasoline is just used as an example, imagine a gasoline that was safe to drink yet still had a super high density of caloriesIf something has seven thousand calories yet doesn't weigh 1kg, where does the 1kg of fat come from?
>>77507254I'd wager that gasoline doesn't have dietary calories in the same sense as aspartame or other diet sweeteners.
>>77507256I do when I've eaten beans and cabbage, cuck
Different substances have different amounts of energy in them. Gasoline is not an edible substance, nor is it a fat, protein or carb. The key is that edible calories are what cause permanent weight gain due to your body actually using them in the synthesis of new cells.
>>77507258So a calorie isn't a calorie then?
>>77507261you being able to produce methane proves my point dumbass
>>77507263curious, isn't it?
It’s funny because the answer is that gasoline isn’t digestible but this also points to the fact that it’s not necessarily as simple as the calories that go in your mouth are your “calories in”. It’s well documented for example that higher fiber diets tend to stimulate fat loss because they block digestion of non-fiber food. You just shit out some of the food you eat and it never gets the chance to become “calories in” and thus body fat. Exhibit #485827364 in the case for why people think it just comes down to counting calories are wrong.
>>77507266yes very curious, we all thought ppl were cars until u showed up, thanks for the elucidation
>>77507272You get it.The supposed calories you are eating aren't actually the calories the body could convert into fat. It's a pack of lies.
>>77507273dunning Krueger retard
>>77507262>edible calories are what cause permanent weight gain due to your body actually using them in the synthesis of new cellswhat exactly is the endocrinological process behind that?
>>77507262Not even all so-called edible calories are actually digested. The truth is that there isn’t a 1:1 relationship between what you put in your mouth and what is “calories in”. For most, it’s approximate enough that we can reliably say caloric intake matters. But it’s far from the only thing that matters. In fact, across meta-analyses looking at fat loss and body composition, we see that there are a bunch of things which correlate more strongly with positive outcomes. The most notable one is actually not caloric intake but caloric expenditure. People who have a high TDEE, either because of high BMR, NEAT, or EAT are fitter than people who have a low caloric intake. So if you have to give someone advice on losing weight, recommending caloric restriction is at best majoring in the minors. You should be telling them to increase their TDEE, but we don’t do that because it’s easier to make a YouTube channel telling people to eat less than how to safely increase their BMR.
>>77507276For a normal person eating a normal diet, it is close though. I personally suspect this is one of the reasons caloric restriction seems to work for people who eat mostly whole foods and doesn’t seem to work for people who don’t. When your Oreos are 30% propylene glycol, is eating 500 calories of them really eating 500 calories of them? Probably not. What we can say is there is no additional energy input, but that’s not to say some energy expenditure mechanism isn’t blunted. We know for example that insulin spikes block fat burning. Eat enough carbs often and you literally stop burning fat, no matter how many calories you’ve eaten. At the same time, high carb diets are associated with leaner physiques in studies, and that’s probably because if from Whole Foods they’re also high fiber and known to stimulate TDEE.
What people really need to know is that there’s only one reliable way to ensure your CICO ratio is in fat burning mode and that’s to fast while you max your energy expenditure. If you’re not fasting a minimum of 12+ hours you’re literally never switching to significant fat burning. It’s not until about 24 hours fasted that your body has mostly depleted triglycerides from dietary fat and liver glycogen so it can switch to burning triglycerides from body fat. Unlike caloric restriction, you don’t risk down-regulating metabolism, not really. At that point, if you’re optimizing energy exchange, you’re optimizing fat loss. But until you’ve reached a sufficiently fasted state, it’s entirely possible you’re not burning much body fat all no matter how much you’ve decreased your caloric intake.
>>77507272why would it come out as shit instead of what it looked like in my mouth if that were the case retard
>>77507242A calorie is a unit of energy. Just like a ruminant can digest grass for a much higher energy potential than you can, you cannot extract that energy from gasoline, doofus.The calorie values you see on food labels are based on what an actual human can extract, not simply what value comes out of a calorimeter (it is adjusted based on a lot of data), contrary to popular belief.
>>77507348That's a lot of words to say "CICO isn't real"
>>77507242rookie numbers
>>77507351it is tho despite your tard rage, if you consume less than you expend you lose weight. if you consume healthy foods (steak and eggs) your body will be healthier
>>77507242Gasoline is purely hydrocarbons. It's not possible with human enzymes to break down pure hydrocarbon into Acetyl-CoA to fit the Krebs cycle, and so gas cannot be made into ATP. (On a semi-related note, your fat cells would also burst and die in contact with it.)This has almost nothing to do with the diet logic of CICO, but it would work as an interesting hook to then segway into explaining why fiber is not digestible with enzymes but kinda sorta are through fermentation. >>77507272>It’s well documented for example that higher fiber diets tend to stimulate fat lossIn actuality it's simply that fibrous foods are voluminous and low calorie, so if you eat a lot of fiber, you have less room to eat more goyslop and will, in total, eat less calories, leading to a caloric deficit, and then fat loss. >>77507280It's straw-splitting, like how step-count is an approximation for determining your daily activity level. These so-called activity levels are generalized
>>77507367It's hardly rage, I just can't stand lies.Eating less food (but how much less?) will make you lose weight is true, obviously, but that's very far from CICO cultists thinking everything is about calories. Two people could eat the same number of calories and one would lose weight and another wouldn't.
>>77507370the thing is others numbers don't really matter, eat 1.5 grams of protien per pound of body weight, then find the amount of calories beyond that you can consume to keep energy levels high while still losing weight
>>77507367>healthy foods>steak
>>77507370my ideal number for weight loss is 1800, by the time I've eaten 250g of protien ive finished eating for the day and so I'll allow myself 1-2 green apples before going to the gym for a better workout
>>77507377>steak is unhealthylmao
>>77507257>If something has seven thousand calories yet doesn't weigh 1kg, where does the 1kg of fat come from?I had to read your fucking question 5 fucking times before my brain managed to condescend to your level. Fuck you, I probably have brain damage now. I'm not answering your question.
>>77507242>You're so close to understanding.Ok so help me understand your retarded take.You literally answered your own question, it isn't food. How does this disprove CICO?
>>77507426>I'm not answering your question.Because you can't.
>>77507242Yes
>>77507257>If something has seven thousand calories yet doesn't weigh 1kg, where does the 1kg of fat come from?The cells in your body are mostly water.1 pound of muscles takes less calories to build than 1 pound of fat.
>>77507242gasoline status: giga-mogged
>>77507242If your body could metabolize gasoline for energy or fat storage, then yes it would make you obese. As it turns out, drinking gasoline in large quantities or long term will kill you and your body cannot metabolize it.
>>77507257Like alcohol? Because fat cells are also full of water.
>>77507508>1 pound of muscles takes less calories to build than 1 pound of fat.No, because you have to exercise to build muscle.
>>77507242why do ketotards, carnitards, and vegan FAGGOTS not believe in calories? Go ahead eat whole sticks of butter, 3,000 calories of London broil, and a whole box of no cow bars with 3 cans of beans daily and see what happens>{spoiler}you'll get fat and shit your pants constantly in the case of the latter{spoiler}
>>77508242Nta but humans can't digest isopropyl alcohol, only ethanol and that's only because the liver is good at dealing with tiny xenomolecules, not because we innately have an ability to digest it
>>77508254I worked at a dollar general straight out of high school on the border of the hood somewhere on Long Island, NY in the late 2010s. One customer we had, who was clearly suffering from some kind of debilitating liver disease, would come in once a day to buy 100% rubbing alcohol. I assume he was dying from cirrhosis and just trying to get as drunk as possible. It was sad because he was clearly Sicilian American, standing 6'0" tall, and had a juvenile hairline. What a damn waste
>>77507242If you want a semi serious answer assuming all this magical shit there's limitations in the citric acid cycle and ability to produce enough acetyl-CoA to even convert it. Going beyond that there's just not even carbon in the body to do that. You'd just be excreting undigested gasoline after you utilized 4000-6000 kcal of it
>>77507245It's an example of how different macros are metabolized differently, since alcohol is a macro. CICO in theory works on the idea that a calorie is a calorie.In practice though, CICO is just something you tell everyone to get them to stop being fucking lard-ass cattle. All obesity stems from jamming food in your gullet. It's not from people a tiny amount of the "wrong" food. Yeah, it's more complicated than CICO but some 80IQ trailer trash (standard /fit/ user) doesn't need to be confused by that information. Telling people to do their own research is horrible advice because that just leads people to lazy grifter content on youtube. They're not equipped to do that.
>>77508242Fat cells are NOT full of water they are 90% lipid, 10% water. That is completely wrong and highlights what I'm talking about above. You people are incapable of learning.
People who say that CICO doesn’t work because of food specific variables etc fail to understand that even just beyond an edible foods dietary calories TEF exists, which is why something like oats is going to be less net calories than rice even though they are both simple carbs (fiber). Understanding nutrition is more than adding or subtracting 200 calories from an estimated BMR + a flat estimate of calories burnt based on a generic activity level. More modern systems like MacroFactor and whatever else are out now are successful because they operate on an algorithmic TDEE. I have been running the nSuns TDEE spreadsheet for years with my rolling estimate window set on a 4 week chunk of data and it works just fine. An adaptive TDEE is based on calories in and weight logged, so it is empirical data that without arbitrary estimation is able to factor in active energy, workouts, TEF, etc. without pointless estimations. So to answer OP with muh nuance the answer is unequivocally, yes, you would gain weight IF you were able to eat in a 7000 calorie surplus assuming that whatever the surplus is made up of is digestible, though due to metabolic fluctuation and changes in TEF depending on wether or not you ate the same foods every day you would see upward trends within a given range. Also I guess I’ll humor the CICO isn’t real retards by saying I don’t think you would be gaining 14 pounds a week in a 7,000 calorie surplus, you are limited by digestion and other metabolic pathways. CICO is real but you must understand it exists within a much larger framework, the body is complex.
>>77507242Sounds like you're annoyed you can't get fat off gasoline. Have you tried chugging corn oil? That should help you on your fat fetish journey.
>>77507242Gasoline has bajillion calories in terms of energy, but these calories aren't available to you via digestion
>>77508317He's gonna reply smugly because "your body can't process that, regardless of the number of calories" isn't an acceptable answer for him
I think OP just wants to eat gasoline
>>77507242A gallon of gasoline has 31,000 calories. So you would probably need to drink around half a liter of gasoline per day to maintain your weight.
Contrary to the belief of CICO deniers the calorie count on food labels am isn't calculated by simply burning food and digestibility is taken into account https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-101/subpart-A/section-101.9
>>77507242the calories of a food is the energy your body can get from itassuming your body can get the energy from itso if you ingest gasoline, i doubt your body can get anything from itthose calories of energy are probably produced when it's ignitedif you drink gasoline and ignite it, you might get all the 31 million calories but you will probably explode
>>77508344Human body is not a combustion engine, you cannot burn fuel to get those calories from it
>>77507242Your body can’t digest and metabolize just anything and everything.
>>77508497does it metabolize carbs, fats and protein in the same way?
>>77507280Ok but eating less, i.e. caloric restriction, actually leads to longer and healthier lifespans.Increasing food intake and BMR results in shorter lifespans.
>>77508503Enzymes break apart the molecular structures of simple sugars, fatty acids on a glycerol backbone, and amino acids by wedging a water molecule in between their folds in order to break them up and carry them away as single units of that type The molecular structure of gasoline which is purely hydrogen and carbon makes it impossible for enzymes to break it up in that way. There are no folds in it for the enzymes to leverage. because of that you need a tremendous amount of energy to break it up, hence, why it's burned
>>77507250Stop watching porn and gfto of here
>>77507245>Is this a joke or do you really think drinking gasoline is safe?Typical GIGO denier. Gasoline in, gasoline out. You can't break the law of thermodynamics.
>>77508437But it is certainly capable of "processing" anti-matter in the sense of turning it into heat, so maybe this is a clue that heat production is NOT the only important bioactivity in foods.
>>77507377Post body.
>>77508272And the vessels and connective tissue that is 20% or more?
>>77507242The word calories in food doesn't have the same meaning as calories in heat energy. We use calories as a shorthand for comparing the bioavailable energy from food because it's the closest way to compare sugars, fats, and proteins. An actual nutrition facts label would have to list off the hundreds of different molecules in the food all measure down to the milligram, but that would be too much information for a normie to digest. Conveniently if you burn food you can get heat energy from it and the heat energy from burning food has a very close correlation to the energy it gives humans so we just use the calories shorthand. The real problem is that we reuse a word. The Europeans have it right when they use kcal for food and cal for heat.
>>77507257You are constantly breathing in O2 and mixing it with C6H12O6 to make CO2, H2O and energy. Those three atoms, C, H, and O, make up the vast, vast majority of the building blocks of the organic molecules your body is made of. There is mass constantly entering your body and your body uses it to build molecules.
>>77508503It metabolizes them in a similar enough way that they can be compared, yes. Technically your body doesn't even metabolize glucose and fructose the same way and those are nearly identical. You shouldn't worry about the details, though because you're getting lost in the trees and ignoring the forest. If you want to lose weight, eat less than you are eating now. It's that simple.
>>77507554>he doesn't bulk on suns being createdNGMI
>>77509521>someone actually gave a good answerwow
>>77509517kcal is literally just 1000 cal, so it doesnt fix anything other than magnitude
>>77507330Probably because it was melted in hydrochloric acid and other enzymes you ignorant buffoon.
>>77507368> In actuality it's simply that fibrous foods are voluminous and low calorie, so if you eat a lot of fiber, you have less room to eat more goyslop and will, in total, eat less calories, leading to a caloric deficit, and then fat lossNot true. That’s one of the reasons but it’s not the only reason. This has been demonstrated in reproducible studies. Fiber blunts the digestion of food it’s consumed with.
>>77507368If what we see is that high TDEE correlates with better body composition at equivalent caloric intake then it’s objectively not straw splitting. TEF might be, but there’s more to it than TEF.
>>77508528There are a slew of things that correlate with longer lifespans more than caloric restriction, which by the way, only correlates with longer lifespan down to relatively healthy body composition. What you’re seeing in the correlation between calorie restriction and longer lifespan is that fat people die earlier. That’s it.
>>77509649So if I eat a celery stalk before an entire costco jar of peanut butter every day then I won't absorb the calories because my trusty fiber is taking the hit for the team and I won't gain fat nice >>77509652>increasing the caloric deficit speeds up fat loss >active populations have better body compositions than sedentary No fuuuucking shit
>>77509683yep, you would be ever so slightly faster without the celery that's what he's saying
>>77507263Energy is always conserved. However, not all energy in everything you eat gets converted into bio-available energy. Couple this with the fact that energy (kcal) on food labels is measured by burning, and yeah you've found a contradiction. What's on food labels is not exactly what will end up used/stored as energy in your body.However, energy that *is* converted to bioavailable energy in your body must be conserved.>>77507254If your body could employ antimatter annihilation to convert food to energy, you'd have to eat about 10ng of matter a day to survive.So how energy is converted obviously makes a difference.>>77507250Thanks for your honesty OP
>>77509688Can confirm, I eat a 28oz jar of peanut butter every day but with celery so I don't absorb any calories and I'm not fat
>>77507242The CI in CICO always confuses the idiots.“Calories in” is a representation of the calories your body can process, not the amount of calories that go in your mouth.This is why keto diets work so well, when you don’t produce insulin, your body doesn’t have the biomechanics to process the small amount of carbs that get in, so the CI is reduced even further because your body doesn’t have the tools to process it.In your example, our bodies don’t have the biomechanics to process gasoline, so it’s not really CI because it never got “in” in the first place.
>>77509742>don't produce insulin in keto dietsWhy are you lying?
>>77509683If you drink psyllium with your meal then yes you will shit some of that non psyllium food out with fully digesting it.
>>77509771This really only applies to fat and even then it's not that much, the effect is supposed to be feeling fuller and thus eating less
>>77507242uh acktually chud i eat wood chips and it got fat
>>77509749I’m not. Low carb inhibits insulin production which is why keto is so effective. Insulin is the main hormone that Facilitates fat storage.You cut out insulin triggers (I.e carbs in your blood) you shut down your bodies ability to store fat, I.e you shut down a major part of CI in the CICO
>>77509727Peanuts have their own fiber, you don't need the celery
>>77509771You're too lost in the morass of the dumbass minutiae of this Did you know that in humans there is some caloric value to fiber based on fermentation too? It's clearly evident in the massive amount of fart gas that legumes produce, but did you know that there's a really small amount of calories metabolized by that fermented fiber? But why would we care when it's insignificant?
>>77508503No.
>>77509895>Low carb inhibits insulin productionIt does not. There's less of a spike, but insulin is still produced to store excess fuel circulating in the bloodstream after a meal.
>>77508503
>>77510310Significantly less insulin is produced, the signal to produce more is based on blood sugar.Yes you don’t wipe out your bodies ability to produce insulin because keto doesn’t make you a diabetic.But you are lying / deliberately ignoring the fact that a keto diet crashes your insulin levels and significantly inhibits your bodies ability to store fat. The total CI as a result is reduced simply due to the fact your body cannot adequately process it
>>77510633>significantly inhibits your bodies ability to store fatIt does not lolOne, anecdotally, there is no evidence of someone eating thousands of calories of fat a day and not gaining the corresponding weight.The other main thing is that you'll just be more likely to burn dietary fat instead of burning stored fat. Circulating FFAs in blood don't just magically go away, they have to be uptaken in cells- whether to be burned as energy or stored in adipocytes. So I don't really see how you can claim the total CI is reduced.
What the fuck kinds of macros does gasoline even have? It's so energy dense it almost has to be fat right?But then isn't oil pretty much dead plants and animals compressed over millions of years? So it also has some carbs and protein in it? If oil (refined into gasoline) is literally just compacted plants and animals it actually unironically sounds like a pretty balanced diet no?
>>77511314Gasoline has no oxygen in its chemical structure, it's a pure hydrocarbon. It has no nutritional value to us.
>>77511320cars seems to love it though
>>77511323Yes, when burned (combusted) it is incredibly energy dense. Humans do not combust macronutrients though because heat isn't super useful biologically. Cellular respiration produces ATP which is more useful to catalyze other reactions in the body.
>>77511326why do you go to the gym to 'burn fat' then?
>>77507242Why is no one pointing out that what we refer to as a "calorie" in our diet is really a kilo-calorie. So a gallon of gas has about 31,536 calories. Small sips of gas would not be as you say "easily tens of thousands of extra kilocalories" it would be tens of calories i.e. nothing really significant. Diesel vehicles can get roughly the same amount of mileage from used cooking oil because fat has roughly the same calories as diesel and gas. You haven't found some epic thermodynamics breaking hack, this is purely a semantic issue.
>>77509554Nah that would be far too fattening which is why I exist solely on perineum sunning. All the benefits with none of the bloat.
>>77511328"Burn" is a common term, not a technical one. It is true that human movement produces heat as a byproduct, but that comes from using ATP to do so, not directly combusting carbs/fats.>>77511332This is also true. By combustion, dietary fats have only slightly less energy density than pure gasoline. Carbs have around half.
>>77511332because this board is full of morons,dyels, and dyels who are morons.
>>77511298At this point I know I’m engaging in conversation with a fat.Please get some education instead of being a “big boned” thick skulled fat.You clearly have a limited understanding of biology and especially endocrinology and are just on the internet to argue about things you don’t actually know anything about.
>>77511839I'm literally underweight retardAnyways,>not engaging with my mechanistic argumentI accept your concession
>>77507242body can't digest hydrocarbons
>>77507242you definitely should. you just unlocked the occult sacred arcane knowledge. enjoy.
>>77507242Tell me the enzymes that will metabolise the polycarbons in gas into something that can enter the Krebs cycle and I'll start drinking gas.>Ethanol doesn't count, that's in alcohol, and yes you can already gain fat from drinking alcohol proving CICO once again
>N-NOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST DRINK GASOLINE
>>77507242>If CICO is realIt isn't.
>>77507242CICO is real for carbs, fat and protein.CICO isn't real for uranium 235, deuterium-tritium fusion or anything of the sort.Any other questions?
>>77507242I thought the ketotard was a completely insane faggot however I am once compelled to learn. What if I did drink gasoline?
Fuuuuck everyone is so fucking dumb, this shit is easy.Yes there are a lot of calories in that gasoline, but your body can't access them. So instead your liver will do some chemistry to the gasoline to convert it into something you can piss or shit out, and then you piss or shit it out again. At that part the calories from that gasoline becomes part of the Calories Out half of CICO. So the balance is met again and you don't get fat.
>>77513155If you drink enough of it, which wouldn't be much, you'd die. Your body can't process it, for one. There's also lots of stuff in there that can do things like:Cause cancer long term.Chemically burn all your soft tissue.Cause severe lung inflammation to the point where you couldn't breathe.Slow down your nervous system.
>>77513177This is a pretty good explanation. You can also think of it like a kernel of corn. You know how sometimes you eat corn and you poop a whole kernel? Yeah, your body didn't magically ignore CICO. The caloric value of that kernel going in is the same as the caloric value of that kernel going out. You simply didn't process any of it (that specific kernel).
>>77513177Damn it, I thought the ketotard hit gold. Makes sense though otherwise we'll be feeding african pure gasoline and solve world hunger otherwise.
>>77507242>what is nutrient absorption
>>77507256Wrong. The digestive system is literally just a bomb calorimeter
