What do these people get out spewing lies? We all know CICO works. Why is there such an effort to discredit it...

um, because your body will cut back on your metabolism and amount of expendable energy if you're not bringing in the right types of calories.

Because making fat ladies feel better about themselves brings in a ton of click revenue.

i was eating the same stuff before as i do now (chicken beans and rice) just spreading it through the day and not doing it in 2 hours like i do now. it has definitely made a difference just timing feedings.

Fatties will say anything to make their disgusting lifestyle seem normal

Two problems with CICO, your body doesn't burn food, it metabolizes, a process which can be more or less efficient dependent on bio-chemistry. Second, CICO relies on the fact that people have absolute willpower, which most do not. CICO works in the same way a programmable microwave works, that is, absolutely perfectly, but you don't see people using that shit. A strictly CICO diet fails because fatasses are mentally stunted. A strictly CICO diet fails because people don't follow it, and these stupid articles you read are the result of their angry blubber flapping. However, there is a lesson to be learned, if you're trying to lead a fatass to water, you should lead him in gradually and in phases; less coke, dr pepper 10, diet coke, tea, water. Otherwise he'll relapse. Same with CICO, start with cutting sugar, keep that for a while, next should be less fast food, keep that for a while, next should be trying to hit a protein macro, then greens, etc. Laying down a CICO diet plan for a fat head isn't going to 99% of the time if they haven't been cultured. Its simple human behavior.

It’s almost like there is a general correlation between low IQ and obesity. That’s not to say necessarily that a retard can’t be Skelly or a smart person can’t be obese

Don't knock it till you try it, I've fasted three days a week for the past two weeks and my lifts have gone up 5 pounds while I've been losing fat. I'll see if this keeps up, but I'm looking vascular as fuck and my face is going hungry model mode.

CICO only works when you meticulously determine your actual maintenance which is actually too difficult for the average person as BMR can vary by up to 50%
via hormones (2000+-1000).

painfully falling on my face and blowing my calorie budget before lunch for a couple weeks made me do it right

I also diet like a fucking phsyco too though, carry a pocket book to record everything.

Believing in Calories In, Calories Out is white privilege. I'm sick and tired of /pol/ dragging white nationalism into Veeky Forums!

yeah but who gives a shit about obese people i'm only interested in this as far as cutting while retaining LBM goes.

You should be able to estimate your general BMR based on how much you eat. If I stay at the same weight for an extended period of time, that means the amount of food I’m eating is about equal to the amount of energy my body uses per day. So In order to lose weight I make my portions smaller or cut out snacks.

>What do these people get out spewing lies?
From what I got when I read this sort of stuff, it's an issue of communication. They don't seem to contradict CICO itself, but they say that while it holds true in a scientific way, it's not a very good strategy to use. So in their view CICO is good descriptively, but bad proscriptively.
Now why they use such bullshit clickbait titles, I don't know. It only makes them look stupid, in my opinion.

Because normies are idiots who want easy answers and lack common sense. The diet industry is built on taking advantage of them with "top secret" info like "drink a milk smoothie after lunch and watch the calories melt off!" Or "eat 20 small meals a day instead of 2-3 large ones and a magic black hole will appear in your stomach that will suck up all the calories". Simple and effective answers that require willpower instead of "secret knowledge" is a threat to this industry.

Stop lying to people.
Maintenance can be determined in three or less.
Count calories, are you hungry? eat more, are you not hungry? eat less. Average over the course of three days.
Determine your baseline, adjust as you work out more.
WOW SO MUCH WORK.

Seriously this shit has been proven countless times to work by literally thousands of people across the world who are in better shape and more dedicated to fitness than you.

bmr isn't the same thing as tdee and i'm convinced that long term caloric restriction without doing IF of some kind fucks up your bmr. this only counts for people that have muscle mass idk what is wrong with obese landwhale types but their hormones are probably fucked from too much baja blast anyway

yeah hunger as a measure of caloric needs is full on retarded. nice post.

>Is it because it’s so simple that no one can profit off of it directly like a typical diet program?

Yes.

Most of the reasons why fatties claim that CICO doesn't work is because they can't stop fucking eating or they lie / undercount calories.

Diets are designed to flog books and ready meals, but any diet company (like Slimfast or Weight Watchers) would go bust without the repeat business of yo yo dieters.

CICO followed by a weight maintenance regime once you hit your target is straightforward and easily achievable by anyone with a reasonable understanding of how to count calories without lying to themselves and how to use a fucking digital scale.

Most of the lies we here about CICO being "dangerous" or "not working" originates either from the health lobby (cos can't sell drugs) or the diet lobby.

Probably marketed to grab people's attention if it's followed by an explanation. The explanation probably tells people that CICO only works if the right nutrients are cinsumed and little to no sugars/fats are cinsumed.

Could also be a meme to curb the amount of people who develop eating disorders as a result of hearing CICO. Designed to address mental health but disguised as a dietary instruction

In practice it's usually "consume less than you burn"

>Determine your baseline
Interlinked.

I'm with you my nigga.

Who says it's difficult to find a treadmill when traveling?

fuck off you fat shill.
Hunger is literally how you determine your TDEE.
You're hungry, you lose weight. You're not hungry you stay the same weight.
Wow omg so much science is needed, I CAN'T DO THIS WITHOUT A FULL RESEARCH TEAM :(
Seriously kill yourself, fucking kill yourself and save the world from your stupidity.

Almost threw up my protein shake.

That can't be real...

Some of that could be from a different level of fiber intake, which influences how much nutrition, including calories, is absorbed in the gut.

>they didn't play the new Dead Space...

That's a flaw with people's behavior/mindset though, not with CICO.

CICO is irrefutable. The human body runs on energy. That energy comes from either food you eat, or from body fat. Saying someone is incapable of burning body fat would mean they would literally starve to death in their sleep.

Similarly, to gain weight, your body needs raw material to work with, and literally the only thing available is food that wasn't used for energy. To say someone can gain weight without eating is like saying you can build a brick wall without bricks.

Where people get hung up is, they find some "estimate" online of what their "Calories Out" should be (aka your TDEE) and then give up when it doesn't work. "Well, I guess I'm just genetically fat/have PCOS/etc. , there's nothing I can do." No, all it means is the estimate you got for your TDEE was wrong.

CI - CO * 7 / 3500 = Pounds per Week. (order of operations nitpickers pls go)

So in this equation, people fill in CI and guesstimate CO, and that's wrong. Fill in CI. Observe Pounds per Week for a month and fill that in. THEN solve for CO.

Are feet shoes

>Cardio
>Math error
>Water Weight

They are now.

>That's a flaw with people's behavior/mindset though, not with CICO.
No, you idiot, read my post, you're hung up specific meaning and not broader application. If a device, mental or physical, which is designed for humans, is disdained by humans and nearly universally shunned, then there is a flaw with it. This is why I used the example of the programmable microwave. You need to read my post. If people don't like CICO, and it doesn't help fatties change, then the claim that it is flawed is in fact correct.
>CICO is irrefutable
And totally useless until fatties can control what they put in their mouths, at which point its irrelevant because their disordered eating is under control.

Not the guy you were responding to, but he's right, you really are a retard.

>I only eat 600 calories a day and I gain weight!
t. Thinks a slice of pizza is 12 calories

>And totally useless until fatties can control what they put in their mouths, at which point its irrelevant because their disordered eating is under control.

So what? We should find it acceptable to lie to fatties because the truth is to difficult for them?

That's a fucking snowflake mentality if ever I heard one.

Maybe if these fuckers stopped lying about diets then fatties would stop lying about how many calories they eat.

Part of the reason they can't stop eating is the calories they're eating are hfcs junk so they never achieve satiety and thus are perpetually hungry

Calorie counting does not work because you don't really know how much calories you are eating, nor do you know how much calories you actually burn. All you can do is try to can try to make an educated guess.

Also it's not an effective way to lose weight because your body will adapt to whatever amount of calories you give it. If you get into a 500 calories deficit every day, after a little while (two weeks?) your body will lower your metabolic rate to use 500 less calorie and your weight loss will stop.

>And totally useless until fatties can control what they put in their mouths, at which point its irrelevant because their disordered eating is under control.
So you understand that there’s no flaw in CICO, and that the problem lies entirely with fat people not having the willpower to put down the fork, but somehow it’s the fault of CICO? Fuck this site is filled with retards

t.

>Calorie counting does not work because you don't really know how much calories you are eating, nor do you know how much calories you actually burn

Just because it is difficult to measure / assess how many calories are going in and out doesn't make it bullshit.

I admit I've had exactly this problem of making the assessment which is why I've switched my core diet to things for which there is little reasonable room for error (toast, coffee made by me the same way every day, raw eggs to stave off hunger pangs).

While I may not be exactly right about how many calories an egg has, it is within a reasonable margin of error of my estimate, which means that so is my calculation of how many calories I am consuming per day.

If I was to attempt the same with prepackaged food or (even worse) take out meals then my margin of error could be massively out.

TL/DR - Just because it is difficult to measure doesn't make it untrue

That's what I programmed into my fitness pal so it has to be true. It's also low carb.

I suppose Pizza is a type of vegetable?

Because pretending CICO is wrong allows them to make up their own theories about how weight loss works, that they can sell books about

So if I can't get a high enough sat score to get into the university I want to, is that university flawed?

If I hand a tribal nig an iPad and he can't figure it out is the device flawed?

No, those aren't flaws, it's just reality. Something can work as intended and not be accessible to the lowest common denominator. Fatties don't fail CICO because it requires a biology degree and a deep understanding of the different elements and nuances that go in to it, they fail because they are sacks of shit who would rather dismiss a simple truth if it means getting out of accepting responsibility for their gluttony.

>your body will adapt to whatever
NO, this was never proven.

The reason your metabolic rate changes is because you burn through all your fat and your muscle mass changes to meet your caloric restriction. This process takes months.
Fuck you, you fucking retard.
Fat people take years to burn through the amount of fat needed to ever hit this event horizon. That's why when you're fat you can gain muscle while still losing weight, it's literally the definition of noob gains.

Millions of people around the world, millions of people user. Defy your fucking stupid ass comment just by being alive every day.
You literally have to burn a certain number of calories to live every single day.
If you eat below this calorie amount your body will burn fat to survive. It's physically impossible to gain fat when at this limit. So once again disproving your stupid ass post.

Calories in Calories out is a law of science, it's fucking thermodynamics. The fact you losers can't provide an actual scientific citation by a reputable person is proof enough.

>Also it's not an effective way to lose weight because your body will adapt to whatever amount of calories you give it
Yeah, by burning fat until your body requires less calories to maintain balance. That's weight loss. If you want further weight loss, you continue to cut.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2204100

Adjusted RMR decreased at Month 3 in the CR group and at Month 6 in the CR+EX and LCD groups. Neither measure of SPA decreased significantly in any group. PAL decreased at Month 3 in the CR and LCD groups, but not in the CR+EX group, who engaged in structured exercise. Changes in SPA in the chamber and free-living PAL were not related.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18198305

Big food corp shills

If you observe something completely absurd, chances are your observation is at fault.

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2204100
> Reasons for contradictory results include variations in control of prior diet and exercise patterns, inadequate exercise frequency, intensity and duration, and the possibility of response to exercise varying between individuals.

>FAT PEOPLE BEING FAT MORE TO HEAR AT 10 TONIGHT

Wow, thanks for proving my post.
It even says in your stupid ass citation that the main reason for fats being unable to lose weight was their choices.
Not how thermodynamics work.
I am an ex fatty, I am literally the proof against everything said in this stupid ass thread.

Year 1
>eat less
>move more
>lose weight
Year 2
>Improve macro ratio
>more even more
>lose weight
Year 3
>Improve macros even more
>move and workout even more
>lose even more weight

250lbs to 170lbs, suck my dick newfag.

It's not as solid a foundation as you think.
There are a lot of things that can chafe that, like your bodies alkalinity level, your metabolisms efficiency, mental state. Your body can literally choose to reject calories and you'll just shit them out, or metabolic function could increase burning calories doing nothing.
It's literally impossible for me to put weight on that isn't muscle and I can eat upto 6 solid meals a day.
If you want ci/co to represent truth you must take into account all bodily factors not just 1 bog standard metabolic speed

>It's not as solid a foundation as you think.
It really is

Calorie absorption from food and its subsequent expenditure is affected by what, how, when, how much food you eat. You may lose weight over eating simply because you can't fully take in what you eat. Over eating meat for example will lead you to take less and less calories from it ass you eat more and more, more calories are wasted. I often find myself having greasy shits which mean there are undigested fats in it.

>It's not as solid a foundation as you think.
It's pretty much the 2nd law of Thermodynamics which is what rules the visible universe.

You literally just validated CICO with your post. Congratulations, son, you played yourself.

And homeostasis, which governs physiology. e.g. you don't have a fast metabolism, or you'd be running a fever.

cico is shit and youre a retard if you still believe it. a diet of 3000kcals of glucose don't have the same effect on hormones, and therefore shit like fat storage, as 3000kcals of fats, protein and fiber.

You know nothing about biology.
Co/co doesn't take into account a whole host of things some of which mentioned in my previous post.
You know how the body actually produces energy? Through a system of what is referred to as sodium and potassium gates using the difference in atomic charge to produce small electrical pulses which then stimulate you muscle fibbers allowing you to move

Let me guess? You don't believe in gravity either? The earth just sucks?

No one is saying that weight gains isn't caused by eating too much calories vs what you burn. What they are saying is that you can't use calorie counting as a good way to lose weight because you don't know actually know how much of the calories you eat you will actually burn.

Lol wut, I never said energy was just disappearing or appearing out of nothing, just that cico doesn't account for a lot of biological functions.
Some people do constantly, I run a higher body temp than average, and I know someone with epilepsy that does aswel

hey mr redditor, you forgot mentioning tinfoil hats and flat earth. step up ur game

>cico doesn't account for a lot of biological functions
Welcome to retardville, population: you

Because it doesn't mean calorie neutrality. Insulin resistance and calorie sources have a lot to do with eachother. Metabolism is not simply thermodynamics, hormones are fucky.

This guy gets it. They're not in it for truth. They're in it for money.

Alright mister biologist. How many calories does your metabolism but processing your food? Beating your heart? Running all your organs? Also how do sodium and potassium gates maintain there charge?

Yes. Although all calories are equal from an energy perspective the source/type of calories have different effects on the body in general.

Everybody's body is different in specifics which is why a diet which results in 2lbs per week weight loss on one person might result in a 1lb per week (or perhaps 3lbs per week) weight loss in another.

This doesn't negate CICO, just makes the experiences different for each person.

My "Physiology and Development" professor has just informed the class of the fact that 1 gram of fat contains 3000 calories

I think this is why its so hard to lose weight.

>1 gram of fat contains 3000 calories
Is he being sarcastic or moronic?

>a pound of body fat actually contains anywhere from 3,436 to 3,752 calories

This so much

CICO ...but the isn't a stream engine, there are variables.

Inb4 brainlets

Shes just fat dude

Prolly doesn't realize fat is a macronutrient too

Keked so goddamn hard.

such as

Maybe she should just start chewing down on her muffin top, might create a "virtuous circle" of weight loss...

You may aswell just call it dieting then. I've only ever seen co calculated in terms of exercise and not body composition and metabolic function

It took you three years to lose 80 lbs?
You’re a lazy sack of shit.

>such as
Insulin resistance
Leptin
Metabolism (largely thyroid related)
...etc...

Not sure I've seen a full list.

CICO
I had to log and track everything I ate
I had to do the same weekly routine to help figure out tree
I had to make adjustments to gain accuracy
I lost 1kg per week
For 23 weeks straight
Some time later
Went on a bulk
Gained 7kg
Starting to get juicy
Going to cut again

Willpower in fat out is what it should be called
I have tried not to be fat for almost 10 years
People told me 95% of diets fail I reply "easy all I need to do is try 20 times"
/fit thank you all soon I will make it
Don't let the HAES Cursades get you

>use of atomic charge blah blah blah electrical pulses

you are thinking of the electrochemical gradient which doesn't require input of energy but just the presence of different ions. Its called equilibrium.
You are also thinking of neurons. They use electrical charge, yet again, by use of ions through electrochemical gradients. Your muscle fibers use ATP to break bonds so that new ones can form along with other ions so that binding sites are made available.
Energy is produced by use of reserves or by whats been made available through digestion. First your body uses food, then your reserves.

>just ate two chipotle triple chicken bowls in an hour. will have lost weight by tomorrow weigh in

btfo cico shills

>Don't let the HAES Cursades get you
May rectal cancer afflict those motherfuckers.

>just ate two chipotle triple chicken bowls in an hour

Presumably this is the "shit yourself thin" diet?

Are you retarded or did you purposefully misquoted the study?

"Whether exercise has a carry-over effect on resting metabolic rate remains controversial, even though this question has been studied extensively during the last 90 years. Reasons for contradictory results include variations in control of prior diet and exercise patterns, inadequate exercise frequency, intensity and duration, and the possibility of response to exercise varying between individuals."

What's in question in that quote isn't whether calorie restriction affects RMR, it's if exercise does.

that's 240g of protein in one meal dude. gettin fucxkin diced

>hey if you eat less your body tries to make up for it by making you burn less calories
>also, if you do even mild workouts your body actually doesn't do this
>it may actually burn even more
wow

Your point being, you've just explained what I said I a way most can't understand. I used simple language and concepts so people could understand what I am saying because not everyone is a biologist my friend. Doesn't change the fact cico doesn't account for it.

might've meant one lb, which is still wrong but a hell of a lot closer lmao

See