>If you cut about 800 calories a day of carbohydrates from your diet, you lose 53 grams of body fat a day, but if you cut the same number of fat calories, you lose 89 grams a day. Same number of calories, but nine pats of butter worth of extra fat melting off your body every day on a low-fat diet, compared to a low-carb diet. Same number of calories, but about 80 percent more fat loss when you cut down on fat instead of carbs. Here’s the graph. Cut 800 calories from your diet by cutting carbs, and you do lose body fat. But cut out the same number of calories by cutting fat, and you lose even more body fat—80 percent more body fat lost. The title of the study speaks for itself: “Calorie for Calorie, Dietary Fat Restriction Results in More Body Fat Loss than Carbohydrate Restriction in People with Obesity.”https://nutritionfacts.org/video/keto-diet-results-for-weight-loss/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oePve0-8W0I
>>77517966If they didn't do long term with before and after dexa scans, this study is also worthless Hormonal liquid retention, hormonal mass retention/inflation, glycogen stores all contribute to shit like thisI'm not saying cico or whatever is correct, I'm just tired of all the half info these nerds put out
>>77517977>if you don't meet my arbitrary standards for methodology, sample size, and reliability, then I can completely disregard it and continue being a ketolardthat's not how science works
>>77517966>have you ever seen the caliber of person that does these kind of studies? Athletes that had to learn the hard way they couldn’t play games their whole lives and so now do studies in soft sciences with many many variables and confounding factors and take empirical results as fact.
>>77518027so... science is a jewish psyop and you should eat butter and steak and ice cream every day?
>>77517990>6 days>"obese" peopleHow obese?
>>77517966how do you calculate how many calories the subject's body is actually process and using instead of shitting out?
>>77517966Fat calories weigh more. They have more nutrition.
>>77518033Of course not. Ice cream is for celebrations.
>>77517990You are a namefag trying to hostilely promote veganism on /fit/You rank among the most idiotic and pathetic humans to have ever lived.
>>77518033save room for beer
>>77518027lol
>>77517966I'm all for a low-fat diet, especially for weight loss, but holy shit you vegans are retarded and insufferable
CICO has never been defeated. It wins every single time. Everything else is just details and measurement error. Some fat, decent amount of fiber, decent amount of protein, fill in remainder with carb/fat/protein in literally any way you wish.
If I was Elon Musk I'd fund a year long metabolic ward study where fatties were unable to leave the chamber for any reason just to prove CICO always wins.
>>77518069how am I retarded or insufferable? Do I need to post the AI image of the obese ketolard holding a gun to a cow's head telling a jewish doctor that he's being insufferable for recommending healthy habits?>>77518086>>77518091CICO is a useful framework but it doesn't capture nearly the whole story. Case in point, OP.>If you cut about 800 calories a day of carbohydrates from your diet, you lose 53 grams of body fat a day, but if you cut the same number of fat calories, you lose 89 grams a day. Same number of calories, but nine pats of butter worth of extra fat melting off your body every day on a low-fat diet, compared to a low-carb diet. Add to this body composition effects, metabolic effects, nutrient absorption (fiber and certain compounds in beans cause you to absorb fewer calories than you ingest compared to the same meal without fiber/beans), hormones (hunger and satiety can be regulated with diet choices, eg AMPK which is activated by vinegar and nicotine). If you choose to ignore the relevant science and obsess only on CICO, you'll be a ketolard.
>>77518033There are hard sciences, which have experiments that are repeatable with a high percentage of agreement between different experimenters, and soft sciences, which have a lot of variability in conclusions between different experimenters. Exercise and nutrition science is a SOFT science. It is nowhere near as repeatable as, say, the famous Double Alit Experiment in physics. One study in a soft science means nothing. You need many studies over many years done by many people in a variety of circumstances and then MAYBE a meta analysis can give a clue to a correlation. Maybe.
Also eating speed matters a little https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39143072/And it can help with better fat distribution apparently https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9469611/
>>77517966the first thing people cut from their diet when trying to lose weight is fat because its so calorie dense.So your gay little study is pretty irrelevant.
>>77517966I've seen hundreds of CICO debates, how come none of you assholes pointed me to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM ? It has 25M views, how hard is to recommend it?>the keto diet (no carbs) and the Japanese diet (all carbs = rice) both work because both eliminate fructose, fructose actually fucking sucks
>>77517966
>>77519097>>77518224Anti science meattardation. Classic.
