Why does Veeky Forums still shill against keto and IF when simple CICO has been debunked thoroughly?

>shill against keto and IF
IF is cutting on easy mode.
Keto is fine if you're obese/diabetic or doing it short term.
>CICO has been debunked thoroughly
We defying laws of thermodynamics now?

>CICO has been debunked thoroughly

Who says this? Why do you keep saying this?

Cico works. Not just for cuts but for lean bulks and maintenance / recomp. Its easy, as long as you are consistent with your measuring methodology and track LONG TERM tdee. Gimmick diets are for brainlets and bums, measurement and analytics is for successful smart people.

ITS ALL ABOUT INSULIN FOOLS

I do about 1600 on average as a 250 lb guy

Started 10 days ago and am 10 lbs down now to 240, but I imagine 7 of those pounds were probably water weight

Yes but people who say durr eat less move more as if the only thing that matters is less calories are dumb.

On keto I can have the willpower to resist cravings and burn fat instead of lbm

Why do uneducated people make these bold claims? CICO has been "debunked" in diabetics and obese people. And it hasnt been debunked. The only difference is the reduced insulin sensitivity in tissue causes disproportionate fat storage due to the Randle cycle and glucose sparing. IF and Keto is infinitely more effective in this situation. Jason Fung himself doesnt recommend it for athletes because they have no use for it and the fact that its detrimental when fat storage isnt plentiful enough. Youll enter a catabolic state one way or another, and youl'll either catabolize fat or muscle. For fat fucks, this isnt an issue because they have so much fat.

Keto is retarded.
IF is legit.
Why lump them in the same category?

>CICO has been "debunked" in diabetics and obese people
Source

I too can violate the laws of thermodynamics at will

>watch me whip
>watch me nae nae

>oh shit gains happenin' happenin'

CBA to link you 30 sources. Go watch Jason Fung's conference on Insulin Resistance and CICO. The title is called The Calorie Deception and its on YouTube. Its part of a medical conference for doctors and all the sources are peer reviewed and listed.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28765272/

Fuck off retard

I don't get keto, so you burn fat instead of carbs how is this better?

>shifting the burden of proof
>conference video as a source
talking out of ass confirmed

IF+Keto has gotten me down 25 lbs in 4 weeks, and it's not slowing down.

The best part is, I'm just not hungry.

>No fat prisoners in Belsen

lol owned bitch

Who the fuck cares about Veeky Forumss obsession on CICO?

Do you think you're going to change anyone's mind with a bait thread and some shitty fucking conference speech?

To be crystal fucking clear I 100% agree with Fung, Ludwig, et.al. that the insulin model of obesity is the solution to the problem.

But you're not going to convince a bunch of mental rejects who get their nutrition information from a sticky and outdated regurgitated advice from the 70's that they're wrong because "fatties are worthless"

Instead of trolling the people who lift why not give sound evidence based nutrition advice to fat fucks coming here looking for weightloss.

Personally I've helped over two dozen fat fucks lose weight and get off over a combined 100 daily medications using the insulin model. Everything from insulin, to blood pressure meds, statins, anti-depressants, and more.

Not that simple, your digestive system is not perfect and doesn't and how calories get distributed also varies.

This. CICO is fucking thermodynamics. Sorry you don't understand basic science OP.

And yet here you are also making claims without evidence. CICO deniers have no shame.

It's is to an extent, it's all about effientcies

what you eat changes your metabolism, so you can't even measure calories out. CICO is worthless.

Tumblr breaks spacetime translational invariance now? Woah, somebody better call CERN!

I doubt you've taken a physics class past high school level shit, regardless the issue with counting calories is that it's really trial and error as it assumes everyone's body processes macronutrients the same exact way and doesn't account for weight fluctuations in terms of lean body mass or fat. It works, but you might not find your actual base metabolic rate for weeks or months through trial and error. Then there's also the fact that you don't burn the same amount of calories every day. Calorie counting is very tough approximation

By this logic then we can't know anything biologically since MUH METABOLISM

you can measure your watts on different diets, you shouldn't need to count calories to stay lean anyway.

But you can, for example using a metabolic chamber. There are even very sophisticated models to predict changes very accurately. Some changes do indeed promote this (eg, high protein and high fiber diets increase energy expenditure), but the effect is rather small and clinically insignificant.

annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-nutr-071811-150705
niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/at-niddk/labs-branches/LBM/integrative-physiology-section/research-behind-body-weight-planner/Documents/Hall_Lancet_Web_Appendix.pdf
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28210884
thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(11)60812-X.pdf
gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(17)30152-X/fulltext

Yes you do. We live in a world where food can easily have more calories than it is filling. Anyone who claims to stay sub-10% bf without counting calories is frauding or simply not eating.

CICO is physics. The body is not a machine, it does not work on exact numbers. CICO is accurate enough for 99.98% of the population.

do you own a metabolic chamber? if not then stop counting calories like a teenage girl, I eat at least 2500 to 3000 kcal in pure carbs and I'm 10% body fat. If you're eating burgers and shit, yes you probably need to starve yourself to not get fat but if you're eating white rice, beans, fruit then you have so much energy to burn 4000 kcal/day

>lying on the internet for a shitpost

Why are you even wasting the energy when science is literally against you.

just try high carb for a WEEK eating as much food as you want and it'll be impossible to keep fat on. just a week and ignore all studies to confirm your bias.

>try my anecdote which contradicts known nutrition science

Sure, an anonymous poster on a Malaysian cock-ring sizing forum would never lie to me.

you think froome dog is counting kcal?

youtube.com/watch?v=_rX6Na62yYc

You wouldn't need a metabolic chamber because inter-individual variation is not that high if there's access to some basic parameters like weight, sex, age, height, physical activity level, body fat percentage, etc.

niddk.nih.gov/health-information/weight-management/body-weight-planner

Appeal to ridicule and testimonials don't advance your position.

rather than embarrassing yourself with confusion, go on over to google and start reading how keto works

I eat 1700 kcal a day with daily exercise from a TDEE of 2600.
I try to only eat very low glycemic food.
I also do 18:6 IF

Is that close enough to your program to make it?

He's a fucking professional cyclist. Anyone who's job is intense cardio 5-7 days a week will burn through anything they eat.

You and I, however, are not them and do not do what they do. Same with over 90% of the population. Intense athletes are a minority and not the typical model

I do intense cardio every day too brah, it's easy when you have so much energy from high carb and I don't have to count calories at all

Prove that CICO doesn't work.

>he bikes 200+ km a day at a 30+km/h pace

I guarantee you are nowhere near as active as professional cyclists

durianrider pls go

I do 40km/day on the commute, froome dog is probably taking 4000kcal in carbs every day, I'm only doing 2500

>CICO doesn't work!
>Been eating at a 500 kcal deficit for two months now
>down 20 lbs

Wow really activated my almonds here. I guess I should just stop huh?

>40km a day for commuting purposes is the same as high intensity purpose driven cycling

I know you're shitposting and I'm essentially arguing to myself, but some people are actually as dumb as you in real life.

B-but if you just fasted for two months you'd be down 70lbs and be able to live to 200!

I'd also be a spooky skellington

Not needing to count calories in practice on a healthy lifestyle =/= calories important in theory.

OP is literally a fat earther retard denying the laws of physics.

>fat earther

Kek

>le thermodynamics buzzword

ok pal go eat a plutonium burrito and see if you gain 50lbs overnight.

>muh CICO is wrong despite countless scientific evidence of HUNDREDS of studies, and THOUSANDS of athletes using this method and WORKING for fucking DECADES.
>b-but muh insulin! muh metabolism! you just want to sell coke zero!
Fuck off Jason Fung.

How is that a counterexample to energy balance? There aren't any calories in as there isn't any biological machinery to metabolize plutonium. There would be malabsorption, accumulation in tissues, excretion into urine, sweat, etc.

You know all those defects you listed also occur with carbs proteins and fats to some degree right?

Where in that post did I say CICO doesn't work?

Thermos dynamics is an irrefutable function of the fucking universe. Of course it fucking works you fucking retard.

What I said was that the insulin model for obesity is the real cause.

Let me hold your hand and fucking walk you through this shit.

If you eat 6 carbohydrate meals a day you keep your insulin levels elevated.

Insulin, a hormone, suppresses your leptin response which controls the vagus nerve and downregulates your CNS. the effect of which is increased appetite and lowered energy output.

The presence of insulin also prevents fat cells from releasing fatty acids through lypolisys.

Ergo, the constant consumption of carbohydrates keeps insulin high which increases appetite, increases energy storage as fat, lowers the metabolism, and prevents the mobilization of fat for fuel.

Every single fat fuck you find will have elevated baseline insulin levels irrespective of their glucose levels. They have insulin resistance.

By understanding HOW the different sources of energy affect the hormone response you can better treat the obesity epidemic.

1000 calories of sugar is the same amount of energy as 1000 calories of fat. But what the carbs and fat do to your hormones is completely different.

This guy's got it. When you eat carbs and release a fuckton of insulin into your bloodstream, glucagon(insulin that makes adipose cells release fatty acids) is downregulated. Basically, carbs put your fat stores under a temporary padlock, while fat itself is stored more readily but is also readily available to be released as energy. You also don't have to burn through glycogen stores and access fat directly if you aren't eating carbs

I swear to god I I hear someone mention thermodynamics one more time I'm going to make an anticico thread every day for a week
>implying the human body is as simple as a heat engine
>Actual, genuine retardation

glucagon(hormone* that is responsible...)

What's your routine?

I've done 28 hrs it wasn't that bad. Need to change my diet through.........

Of course, but they do not violate energy balance and the effect sizes tend to be very small.

I can eat my maitenance calories in junk or clean foods and it doesn't change shit. Only really affects me if I'm deficient in nutrients, gtfo.

Wait, keto made me feel like dying.
I'm doing a 20:4 IF route with low carb diet. but I cant do keto. It made me moody and hungry all the time.

>What I said was that the insulin model for obesity is the real cause.
nature.com/ejcn/journal/v71/n3/full/ejcn2016260a.html

>Insulin, a hormone, suppresses your leptin response
ijem.in/article.asp?issn=2230-8210;year=2012;volume=16;issue=9;spage=543;epage=548;aulast=Tsai

>and downregulates your CNS
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306453004000526

>the effect of which is increased appetite
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025169
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X16301152
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844015302917
embor.embopress.org/content/13/12/1079
science.sciencemag.org/content/289/5487/2122
nature.com/nature/journal/v407/n6802/full/407377a0.html
nature.com/neuro/journal/v5/n6/full/nn861.html

>and lowered energy output
nature.com/ijo/journal/v28/n4s/full/0802861a.html
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867414015931
embomolmed.embopress.org/content/8/3/232
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X09011681

>The presence of insulin also prevents fat cells from releasing fatty acids through lypolisys.
journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001485

>Ergo, the constant consumption of carbohydrates keeps insulin high which increases appetite, increases energy storage as fat, lowers the metabolism, and prevents the mobilization of fat for fuel.
biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/06/28/155739

>1000 calories of sugar is the same amount of energy as 1000 calories of fat. But what the carbs and fat do to your hormones is completely different.
gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(17)30152-X/fulltext

>hour long video conference that is from a medical doctor convention discussing advances in medicine and diabetes treatment that links study after study for the hour-long duration of the video as well as cites well understood physiological processes is shifting the burden of proof
>telling you to read (or watch in this case) what is essentially a meta analysis is shifting burden of proof
Just stop replying, you literal retard. Closing your eyes and then screaming "WHERE IS THE PROOF I CANT SEE IT!!!" isnt an argument.

(1) Insulin doesn't instantly stop fat oxidation; there's a temporal and concentration dependence that's based on caloric intake

weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/

In fact, insulin has some thermogenic effects (see ), and there's a slight advantage with higher carbohydrate and higher protein diets with respect to weight loss due to this. Similar story with overfeeding.

(2) Physiological fluctuations in glucogon do not influence adipose tissue lipolysis
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1991802
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11344211
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17308040
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12552113
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17131145

You can eat 100 calories worth of carbs and nothing else every hour you are awake and still lose weight. If you are in a calorie deficit you will lose weight full stop.

Keto works, but only as hunger management. Keto does not significantly increase your metabolism. At the end of the day it still is just calories in vs. calories out.

The first thing I'd detail is your fat%. If you're simply overweight I would put you on a 500calorie restriction diet on 16:8 IF or a Maintenance calorie diet with one or two days of fasting.

If you were obese I'd send you in for bloodwork to get a baseline of your fasting blood sugar, hbA1C, and insulin levels. If those were normal-ish I would put you on 500 calorie reduction 16:8 with a day of total fast per week. When blood test results come back normal we would remove the fasting day.

For the obese with diabetes, or presenting with any metabolic syndrome symptom, or those with high baseline insulin I would attack it more vigorously with an extended fasting period. Two weeks at the most with a 1 week re-feed on 16:8 before resuming another fast.

Every two cycles of fasting I would get another blood test to monitor progress. When levels are only slightly elevated we'll revert to the diet above.

I have never had an obese person with diabetes continue past 4 two week fasting routines, their insulin levels normalize by then and all but one regained their satiety response.

>Low Carb Vail 2016
>a low carb quack conference for low carb quacks
literally no different from youtube.com/watch?v=SAOy9PZd_tQ

>The presence of insulin also prevents fat cells from releasing fatty acids through lypolisys.
journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001485

"In human adipocytes, HSL gene silencing led to improved insulin-stimulated glucose uptake, resulting in increased de novo lipogenesis"
>Improved stimulated glucose uptake resulting in increased de Novo lypogenesis

Wow inhibition of Hormone Sensitive Lypase(which is what consumption of carbs does) made it easier for people to store fat through de Novo lypogenesis.

Nice argument for carb consumption retard

metabolic efficiency is fairly standard accross people. The entire spread is 500 calories per day around a fairly normal curve. This means that the twinkiest twink and the hammiest planet will only have a metaboloc difference of 500 calories burned per day. As a nitritionist I can tell you that keto definitely does not increase metabolic rate.

Mechanistic myopia and quote mining. There are other downstream effects of enhanced insulin sensitivity that run counter to fat storage as discussed earlier ITT. The net effect in that paper was no increase in adiposity, despite less lipolysis, implying it isn't the rate-limiting step to fat loss. How could you miss that?

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11344211
>We conclude that HG per se does not increase interstitial glycerol (and thus lipolysis)

Injecting people with hyperphysiological levels of glucagon didn't speed up lypolysis. No fucking shit, lypolysis isn't linearly increased with abnornal levels be of glucagon.

I'm assuming the rest of your links are just as retarded, and you only read their fucking titles

The effect wasn't "less lypolysis" it was literally an increase in the propensity for individuals to store fat. There's no reason to read past that

HG is defined in that paper as 1.5 ng/kg·min, which is physiological levels of glucagon in the postprandial state. Another paper in the same link block shows that complete antagonism of even fasting concentrations of glucagon has no effect on lipolysis.

Why are they letting you use a computer if you have downs syndrome? Isn't that against the law? Shouldn't you be playing with legos or something?

>The effect wasn't "less lypolysis"
Look at G in fig 2.

>it was literally an increase in the propensity for individuals to store fat.
Yet they demonstrated no increase in fat depot size, implying other counteracting effects.

>There's no reason to read past that
Living at high altitude increases hemoglobin and lung volume. By your retard logic we should infer from this that tissue oxygenation is improved and ignore the obvious counteracting factor of respiring in an environment with reduced atmospheric oxygen concentration.

>Why are they letting you use a computer if you have downs syndrome?
My favorite part of Veeky Forums is when people argue and then basically just devolve into calling each other some form of retarded.

6 days into water fast Veeky Forums. Am i gonna make it?

This is our metabolism and you're going to tell me all anybody needs to know is CICO?

Yeah I'm at 34% bf.
high insulin runs in the family, my mother has it and thyroid issues(I don't have thyroid, but I have all the same symptoms as her for high insulin)

However, my tested resting insulin is 100% normal, so idk.

A week long fast huh
I've done 36 hours, but not a week. Sounds pretty crazy, but if you really think it would help, maybe. I need to do a lot of research first.

>biology violates Hess's law
>biology violates the laws of physics

Creationism levels of retardation right here.

Yeah. I can show you car schematics but that doesn't change that gas in = distance gone. Sure, how far you actually get per litre of gas depends on the engine, and how long the engine lasts depends on the quality of gas you put in, but someone can't come up and say "Hey your engine runs 100km/9L and you just put 9L in your tank, but I have this great new coat of paint that'll let you run 200km on that 9 litres like it's nothing!"

That's all that fad diets, detoxes, and all other shit amount to; a new coat of paint to try and fix a busted engine.

>biology violates the laws of physics

No one has said anything about the laws of physics being broken.
The fact that you're simplifying our complicated energy system to this degree is retarded.

Your body can and will find ways to reduce your energy expenditure if it needs to.

It's also worth noting that the classic 1g carb=4 calories, 1g protein = 4 calories, and 1g fat = 9 calories is only an average. This on top of that most food packaging is, at most, 90% accurate makes it nearly impossible to accurately track calories. And that's not even getting started on how cooking can affect potential calorie absorptive.

This video does well at explaining it.
youtube.com/watch?v=zcMBm-UVdII

All I need to know is that those tits violate the laws of my dick.

and what does her penis do for you user?

I started doing keto and IF just because it triggers people on here for some reason.

At no point does CICO involve the assumption that energy expenditure is a static. Please retake the elementary thermodynamics and differential equations classes you failed.

funny how as soon as I started counting my calories I lost 75 lbs in 6 1/2 months.

must just be a huge coincidence huh.

...

No man you don't understand it's all those evil carbs if you eat carbs every meal then you will get fat! Like all those east asians, a vast majority of them are so obese because of all the god damn rice they eat! We need to hop on meme diets to better prevent this.

New research shows energy expenditure is static and the average adult male will only burn ~2500 calories no matter what.

...