Why do the meanies in /fast/ say that CICO isn't real?
I've lost 70 lbs so far but keep hearing doubt towards calorie counting, how tf do people lose weight if not taking in less calories than they burn? But plenty of people say it's "coincidence" like...What?
Isn't it irrefutable that CICO is the main driver of weight?
Other urls found in this thread:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
twitter.com
>taking diet advice from a bunch of anonymous bros on the next fad diet
It's pretty simple user.
Do people die from starvation?
If they do then that is irrefutable proof that CICO is the law when it comes to how the body processes food. I'm beginning to believe people who fight against CICO are just memers taking the piss out of ignorant fucks.
Remind them that fast is cico. They are consuming less calories, none. If cico doesn't work fast doesn't work, if they disagree it proves they are just trolls kik everyone in fast.
CICO determines how much you weigh yes
But activity level and calorie sources dictate body composition
Simple caloric restriction will cause you to lose weight...but how much of that is muscle and how much is fat? It matters what you eat.
It is real but it is not the end-all, be all of healthy weight.
You could eat chocolate exclusively and not do any excercise and still lose weight if the total amount of calories is below your expenditure but you sure as fuck won't be healthy, let alone fit
Cico suggests all calories are fungible, calorie neutrality is the wrong impression.
>Do people die from starvation
Not a single fat person has ever died of starvation in the history of mankind. If you seriously think a 300lb whale will die because they go three days without eating then you are a special kind of moron. And CICO is a big part of fasting, you're restricting your calories so much that you're taking zero calories, and even on your eating days, a guy who pigs out on 4000 calories cs a guy who takes 1500 calories, the guy with less calories will see better progress.
Even disregarding fasting, what you eat is a big part of weight control alongside how much you eat. You IIFYM faggots are idiots who will be dead before you hit 50 because your hormones are fucked and you've been overstressing your liver your entire life.
>Why do the meanies in /fast/ say that CICO isn't real?
Not from /fast/, but there are several reasons:
1) We don't know if calories are even the measurement and unit we should be looking at. Calories as a measurement of bodyweight and energy intake were invented by Wilbur Olin Atwater some 100 years ago. People just accepted this, no one ever tested it afterwards.
2) Even if we accept calories as the correct unit, we don't know how many calories the individual body is actually metabolizing and how many it shits outs. Because of that, the caloric content of food is a guess, nothing more - it's calculated by burning said food, but we all know (or should know), that our guts isn't a literal oven with a fire in it - otherwise we could bulk on coal and gasoline.
3) We don't know how many calories the body actually puts out - you can measure your Basal metabolic rate, but that's it, and even that may or may not be very accurate, depening on your individual situation. Unless you are walking around with lab equipment 24/7/365, there is no way to know for sure.
All in all, calories, if they are the right unit, are extremely prone to measurement error and other inaccuracies. So it may work for some people, and not at all for others, and this is exactly what we are seeing currently. It's wild guessing, in other words.
>Isn't it irrefutable that CICO is the main driver of weight?
CICO is the basis. it governs your body mass on a physical level. it is impossible to violate.
people denying CICO are deluded by misinformation and misrepresentation of information.
>its not calories, its carbs!
no its not. but for most people, going low carb curbs their appetite, thus leading them to consume fewer total calories, which makes them lose weight due to CICO.
>its not calories, its meal timing!
also bullshit. but again, doing intermittent fasting will for most people result in a big reduction in total calories, which makes them lose weight due to CICO.
>its not calories, it's animal products!
no its not. but, once again, going on a vegan diet also often results in a big reduction in total calories, so weight loss via CICO is achieved.
all these meme diets work BECAUSE they often have the side effect of significantly reducing your total calorie intake, thus fullfilling the CICO criteria for weight loss.
none of them "disprove" or even counter CICO.
>three days
t. retard
calories (kilocalories actually) are just an arbitrary unit of measurement for energy that happened to stick around in food related stuff.
you can measure it in joule or kilojoule instead if you want to be more scientific and use metric units. 1 kcal is roughly equal to 4.2 kJ, and most nutrition labels give the energy value in kJ as well as kcal, but it makes no difference at all.
complaining about measuring food energy in calories is like complaining about measuring distance in miles. like, yeah, you can use kilometers instead if you want to. it doesn't make any difference.
I see, the usual Mr. American education cannot into logical thinking.
>there is no difference between miles and kilometers
The state of American education.
this is not an appropriate reduction or counter to the actual reduction which has yet to be made
you're an faggot
u 2
shitpost harder, lads
1. Because it's old it's automatically discounted? Guess evolution isn't valid either.
2. The human body isn't magic. Scientists can determine an equation for cals burned with a formula based on height age sex weight etc. Sure some slight deviation exists but 99% of the time will be correct. Also, it shouldn't matter if it's an oven or a stomach, the ENERGY to burn food is a measurement, converting furnace to humans is the way of doing this. Again, nobody will burn a sandwich for 200 calories when 99% of the populace takes in 500. Nobody's body is magic.
3. Again, while maybe in rare circumstances there are outliers, an equation studied by scientists will give you a relatively accurate BMR. Again, something everyone cheats on is setting activity levels for BMR. You should ALWAYS use sedentary regardless of your activity level, that way there is little to no deviation and you WILL lose weight. Although I agree people using BMR and saying they are moderately active because of a half mile walk each day are fucking up their numbers tremendously.
In short, if you do the calculations correctly, set your bmr and calorie needs based off of completely sedentary, and WEIGH AND MEASURE EVERY BITE OF FOOD, it's impossible to not lose weight. Impossible. Kill yourself. Your whole argument comes down to just doubting decades of science because ur a fat retard
It's not about logic.
It's about defending the status quo that gives them intellectual power and safety.
It's also about allowing food shills to whore disgusting dangerous foods to naifes.
retards
>this is not an appropriate reduction or counter to the actual reduction which has yet to be made
speak clearly my man
i dont even know what exactly your problem is with calories. again, its just a measure of energy. you can use whatever measure you want, it doesnt change anything about the thing you are measuring.
CICO is oversimplified, which is why it is useful, but it isn't the full picture. It doesn't take into account what weight is fluctuating. You could lose fat, muscle, water and even bone density or organ mass.
Tracking calories and the number on the scale is better than tracking nothing, but it isn't very sophisticated. Even DEXA isn't perfect.
Over time, the "eat less, move more" advice of CICO has a 99% failure rate, and many believe hormones play a major role. Fasting is an attempt to address those hormones.
Additionally, the body only taps into fat reserves when glycogen is depleted, and if you're comstantly resupplying your body with energy it will take a long time to deplete glycogen.
>We don't know if calories are even the measurement and unit we should be looking a
yeah you could call it joule in joule out instead
but that sounds gay lmao
>fad diet
retard detected
>speak clearly my man
dude lol
lemme dumb it down for you, real quick
you only got half the argument
the other half is just whining about tolerances and individual practice
don't worry about it
you did fine
I was being the same pedantic faggot that the OP was being so I can see how you would think I was them
I gotta go to they gym, luv u
good luck
>vegan diet also often results in a big reduction in total calories
You would think , I know a lot of vegans who are fat as fatass because all they eat are modified cakes, cookies and pastries. They think just because sugar isn't an animal product that it's perfectly healthy.
These are all factors that affect CO. You could write multiple books on what all affects CO... Bmr, exercise, muh cundishuns, eating different kinds of foods, different levels of CI... But nothing can *disprove* the concept of CO because it's literally physics.
In practice, you don't actually know your CO from the start. Most people guess at their CO, and probably their CI as well, and then think this disproves CICO when their weight doesn't move the way they expect. But really, you need to work backrests. Know your CI and your weight, and then from THAT, solve for CO using one pound = 3500 calories.
Backrests = backwards. Stupid auto co wreck.
he wasn't saying FAT people are dying of starvation tardo, he was saying that people in general die of starvation, therefore eating less food means you will lose weight.
This.
Cico is a good teaching tool to help people understand or relearn energy density when it comes to food.
Because most people are either blind to it or have been blinded to it by a lifetime of poor eating habits and indoctrination into food addiction by media shills.
It works brilliantly in that regard. But it's so flawed and so abstract that it falls completely apart when tested.
If you can't just burn off 1 pound, which equals 3500 calories, every week if you eat 500 calories less then it doesn't work.
Period.
Hell, even the 3500 calorie = 1 pound thing isn't correct.
Some people can put on a fucking pound from 2750 calories while others can put on a pound from 4000. This is a fact.
Not only that, but all of the "Can eat mcdonalds or twinkies and still lose weight" people are stupid assholes.
Why?
Because in their zest to prove the brilliance of CICO as 100% correct or shill trash food to idiots they fucked up and revealed the massive flaw in it.
They didn't get fit from following cico. They got fit because their bodies started to burn off the excess energy and bad shit in their bodies.
The poor food they ate no doubt cause bad harm to their bodies, BUT because the health markers from lowered body mass and their bodies removing old poor gunked up trash and using it for nutrients and energy that they aren't getting from their diet kept them going, they could pretend that they were healthy for long enough for their magic act to conclude.
The twinkie guy and the mcdonalds lady stopped their diets pretty goddamned fast for a reason. It was killing them.
I think there should be a far more simple easy to understand organic approach to diet.
One that forces people to be self aware and know what foods are bad and what foods are good based on nutrients density what foods sicken them and what they feel like eating at the time.
I don't see how cico can ever fail? even with hormone changes and stuff. if you're losing weight with 2250 calories a day then you stall, move down to 2000. Counting calories doesn't have to be meticulous after you learn what each basic ingredients have in them. I just don't get how it needs to be more complex than that? am i missing something?
Also deep fried junk and liquid calories
Animal products are the most dense sources of calories otherwise
People ate less food to lose weight long before cico.
The thing that's different from them and us now?
They knew to at least try to eat better sources of food instead of the rich food that get them to where they are and didn't have hunger blndness.
What do you weigh now faggot
Ya the difference is that its dense in nutritional value too.
A cut of steak has a huge dose of various vitamins compared to a deepfried Oreo. But somehow you are less healthy to the oreo munching vegan.
I'm from fast and CICO is said to work, it's just that doing it won't give things like autophagy that that thread vouches for. Also, they sometimes cite a starvation experiment where people doing regular calorie restriction lose muscle. More than the fasters claim they lose from fasting, anyway.
I only used it to go from skinnyfat to actually skinny before trying to bulk up, so I don't visit anymore.
I'm too stupid to understand what the hell you're talking about. Yes CICO at extreme levels will cause you to waste muscle due to your body trying to force homeostasis. People who want to do CICO shouldn't be worrying about muscle anyway. Unless you're already skinny get skinny and then build yourself up. The most important muscles will be retained because your body has those in mind for survival first and foremost.
Yeah, and that's what fast says about fasting. They claim that fasting for a couple days preserves more muscle than eating 1000 calories over a longer period of time that makes the calorie deficit the same (eat 2000 calories a day, so 3 days fasting is a 6000 calorie deficit that you would have to spend 6 days of eating 1000 calories to get)
>a bunch of fatties
>bitching about muscle gainz
Don't even fucking talk unless you're under 18 BMI.
Fasting is more anabolic and releases greater GH, but do you get the longevity gains which calorie restriction provides in animal studies?
Fuck if I know, I went in thinking it was a meme and decided to try it for a few months, then left because I didn't need them anymore. I mean, it's literally free
Apparently there was an old OP that had such a thing, but all they have now is
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
CICO is real but it's a massive oversimplification. You can make it easier or harder to lose weight by playing around with factors that affect your hormones, such as fasting.
I think fasting is pretty great but they heavily oversell all the benefits. They turned a great thing into snake oil-tier, the irony being they covet snake juice.
>deep fried oreo.
This cant be a thing
That's not even that bad. The fact that deep fried butter exists should let you know how far humanity has fallen.
CICO is simply energy in, energy out. If you take in more energy than you expend you will gain weight, and if you take in less energy than you expend you will lose weight. Fasting is just extreme CICO. It's incredibly simple and anyone who doesn't understand this concept probably doesn't understand a lot in life.
When /fast/ talks about CICO they're talking about the traditional multiple meals a day "stoking the metabolic furnace" on a caloric deficit. Over long periods metabolism will slow down considerably on those CICO diets and people stall and give up then will gain the weight back because they are not fixing the underlying issue of hormones. Fasting will dramatically increase your insulin sensitivity which is the fat storing hormone. It's also fast as fuck and very muscle sparing due to the processes that go on in the body during the fast e.g. Ketosis, increases in HGH, adrenaline secretion etc..
>CICO isn't real
CICO is real. Fasting just works better because CI=0
CICO is real
people take modifiers such as sugar reducing the CO and say "well it's more complicated than that"
If you eat the same amount of calories and eat high sugar, you will retain more weight than the same calories on a very low sugar low carb diet becasue less calories are expended by your body. Sugar is instant energy, other calories require some processing.
>you will retain more weight than the same calories on a very low sugar low carb diet
Essentially every study ever done on this topic has shown that macros have nearly no effect on weight loss if calories are controlled.
post studies
you're borderline unintelligible in part of this
claiming things are true and saying period makes you seem dumb as fuck
I agree with you on some parts, but I want to see your data or at least point me in the correct direction
great contribution, faggot
False ideas are attractive because they are counter-intuitive.
Thank you for defending good medical procedure. The amount of bro-science being preached is ridiculous. Do you want facts? Enroll in a nutrition class at your local CC. They literally teach you how to find the BMR of people with different physical aspects: age, height, weight, activity level, sex, body fat percentage, etc. I took the class, and did the math for every one of my family members, two of which are the same height and have similar activity levels, but because they have different muscle and bone densities, did not have remotely similar BMRs, and it shows.
>Not a single fat person has ever died of starvation in the history of mankind.
The absolute state of fastards.
They perish after all blubber melts.