Can they change the sticky to remove the CICO myth? It's total bullshit because your BMR adapts to what you do...

Nice. From now on I'll only fill up my gas tank 80%, imagine how much money I'll save!

That's great! I can save money for my dream car now that I don't have to eat anything anymore. 0 caloric intake - 0 bmr.

Body adapts to lower caloric intake so it lowers metabolism means less energy and feeling like shit, that's why CICO is flawed longterm. Fasting is superior in everyway to lose weight because you can even bump up your metabolism while fasted.

Woah this is epic and based and redpilled. You just solved world hunger. Can we hit 50 likes? Alexa. Play Despacito.

Link 1000 eoy

Based and redpilled

if your BMR adapts to what you do, then that's a change in "calories out". it still holds true

Not recording diet,not recording exercise - empirical science must be wrong - my condishions!

Tard faggot!

the metabolism adapting is such a little change it hardly matters. and it only occurs if you're at a deficit of 1000 calories.

CICO is biology and physics, stop being such an idiot

So what you're saying is CICO is a truism with no real meaning.

of a 1000 calories or so*

no that's not what he's saying at all.

My TDEE is at least 1000kcal wide. Anywhere between 2000 and 3000 I don't gain or lose any weight. Turns out real life isn't EVE Online and homeostasis is a thing that exists.

only if your body temperature drops jackass

thats why africans get gangrene and shit

You know you have to wait more than one day before checking weight change?

yeah, sure it is a 1000 calories wide.
>oh, 500 calories i can't use? just make them disappear!
>huh, less calories than i need. i'm gonna have to magically make some energy appear

>did a lot of shit (This includes fidgeting) and get super hungry to the point of you forgetting about your diet
>eat food to maintenance
>do nothing all day constantly thinking about diet
>stick to diet

so you need something like 2.5 calories and it evens out. no mystery here

You could use that argument to "explain" anything.
>I'm doing 0MAD and not losing weight
Your BMR adapted
>my genetics are causing me to be fat, not my diet
I believe you, your BMR must be high

Meaningless.

How much do 1000 calories weight?

no, because the degree of the adaption matters greatly.
CICO: eat less than you burn.
100-200 calories burned less because you're on an extreme diet doesn't invalidate this. it's like taking into account activity or sleep.

it depends in what form
a 1000 calories are like 0.11 kg of fat

5 crystals

counter arguement would be doing a lot less activity from eating less

with same activity level, of course
one could make the case that there's unconsciously less activity, though

CICO is meaningless if you don't know the "CO", which you don't. If you lost weight it is higher than CI if you gained it it is lower. That doesn't tell you anything you didn't know before.

3 fiddy?

uhm yes
i don't know what you're trying to tell me?
i was just saying that a sligh decrease in CO doesn't mean the concept of CICO isn't valid. just take it into account like you do every other factor

can we change reality so op was never born?

I'm trying to tell you that unless you find a way to measure CO, it is a fallacy. Like saying someone died of "cardiac arrest" when that's pretty much the difinition of death

enough calculators to find a rough estimate
go from there, watch your weight, 7 days of legit trying and tracking and you're there

pro tip: People in africa aren't going on a 500kcal deficit. They're being starved to death by hostile tribes because starving people to death is the time-tested, traditional way by which you kill a whole bunch of people. They're not starving, they're getting murdered and genocided. But of course that shit doesn't fly well with the PR of our help helper programs who want to pretend that all we need to do is give them a little money so they can buy food at the local walmart. Simple minds.

>I'm trying to tell you that unless you find a way to measure CO, it is a fallacy.
No, that statement is a fallacy. Just because you can't always get an exact measurement of your TDEE as opposed to an estimate does not stop it from being true. Whether something is true or not does not depend on your ability to accurately observe the phenomenon.

reddit

Someone should have told this to African children

TLDR

Attached: evolved.png (352x500, 248K)

>i'm enlightened by my own complex mind

>law of conservation of energy is a myth

ALERT THE MEDIA! this will change physics forever.

> The body is a stupid machine that can't adapt to changing circumstances
I look forward to a society where stupidity such as this will result in mandatory eugenic castration for the good of the gene pool

>be fat
>eat 500 calories less
>lose weight
>TDEE is adjusted
>still eating same calories is now maintenance
It's almost as if losing weight means you have to readjust your intake

what is this ? im too retarded to understand CICO and BMR

if you arent losing weight even though you are eating less calories you can do 2 things:
>claim your body broke the law of physics
>realize now that you lost weight you need to eat even less

Thermodynamics school:

Fat people typically eat fewer calories than thin people for maintenance. (Yes, this is actually true)

EXERCISE FOR THE PUPIL:
Explain why this is.

>pro tip

Leave nigger

academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/72/6/1451/4729468
>There is marked variance between subjects in the energy expenditure associated with self-selected fidgeting-like activities. The thermogenic potential of fidgeting-like and low-grade activities is sufficiently great to substantively contribute to energy balance.

Skinny people are more active, they run around, they play with their fingers when they watch tv they laugh and they even exercise randomly sometimes, compare that to your depressed fatass NEET playing xbox

Wrong.

Try again. It's thermodynamics. You can solve this. Why do fat people require less energy to maintain their weight?

Im not the first guy but Im under the assumption that they need more, why would they need less?

Think real hard. It's really basic thermodynamics.

>pro tip: People in africa aren't going on a 500kcal deficit. They're being starved to death by hostile tribes because starving people to death is the time-tested, traditional way by which you kill a whole bunch of people.
So they are starving despite their BMR adjusting for that?
>They'rearving, they're getting murdered and genocided.
That is a major issue as well, but not starving.
> of course that shit doesn't fly well with the PR of our help helper programs who want to pretend that all we need to do is give them a little money so they can buy food at the local walmart. Simple minds.
We don't have walmart here, they tried to get here but where not competitive enough.

>tfw too smart to understand how a human body works

i look forward to a society where people understand basic biology

Less metabolically active tissue (muscle) -> lower TDEE.

>CICO diets have a failure rate of ~97%
>your body has effectively two survival modes
>when you encounter less food, but consistently, your bodies will try to match that difference by slowing metabolism
>people on caloric deficit diets can experience up to a decrease in 30% metabolic rate
>this type of metabolic decrease can last a very long time (years), and it does nothing to change your body set weight or change insulin resistance

>the second survival strategy is when absolutely no calories are encountered
>in a fasted state, your body goes into overdrive
>evolutionarily this would be akin to you finding no food in the winter, and your body revs everything up because it’s a do-or-die situation
>the net result of a fast on the body is, decreased insulin sensitivity, changing the body weight set point, slight increase in VO2 Max, absolute no loss of muscle mass
>muscle mass is preserved BECAUSE you have fat stores available and muscles can be maintained on ketones alone
>your body is adapted to fasting by burning fat, not muscle. Otherwise it would decrease the prescious resource of muscle/strength necessary to get a kill

>idiots still do decrease calorie diets instead of fasting

Kek

idmprogram.com/fasting-and-muscle-mass-fasting-part-14/

This, get off the food Jew.

>people are too stupid to diet
no shit, sherlock
>up to 30%
absolute bullshit.
>can last for years
no.
>muscle mass is preserved while fasting
sure it is, sweetie.

Is CICO actually true though?

Today I ate around 1700 calories, but most of those calories were pasta and cookies.

I counted correctly, so I'm sure it's sub 1700 calories, but I already chalked this up to being a "cheat day"

Will I actually lose fat still?

Attached: 1434823286924.jpg (488x488, 24K)

This is complete bullshit. Simple test in a TDEE calculator disputes what you said. 6ft, 30 year old male with sedentary life needs 2,200 calories while same thing except for they are 500 lbs needs about 3,900 calories to maintain.
The only time where a fatty needs less is if that 200 pound person is working out 6 days a week while the fatty about 40 pounds more. Then yes the fatty would eat less to maintain but they have to be slightly over their weight and the other person has to be active 6 days a week.

> The diet failed!
> I didn't fail to stop eating like a fat fuck at all, it's the diets fault!

if the 1700 calories are less than you burn, yes
carbs get water in your muscles though,so the scale is inaccurate until Oh maintained your normal diet again for a few days

You’re absolutely wrong, lad. You’re hanging on to myths

t. dyel

My maintanance calories around around 2500 kcal.

So at 1700 I should be at a large deficit then, right?

fuck off fatty

Roughly 4.65509361E−11 kg based on the E=mc^2 formula

>30% calorie decrease
>this isn't a myth

post evidence.

(You)

yes. but 2500 calories seems like a lot, desu

It fails because gherlin (hunger hormone) is increased in reduced calorie diets, and insulin sensitivity is never addressed. This means that your body is always going to be trying to get to a higher set body weight somewhere where it was before you started dieting.

Yeah, if someone has the absolute willpower to overcome that on an extremely long term basis, then they will diet successfully. But 97% of people don’t.

Fasting addresses both of the issues of gherkin and insulin sensitivity, and has much higher success rates. You can choose to be the 3%. But you’re going to have more success fasting

t. fat genes

>doubting laws of thermodynamics

Calories don't fucking disappear, they might be stored in your body, they might be used, they might be shat out, but they don't disappear. Your inability to accurately estimate does not invalidate the laws of the universe.

so it's willpower vs losing muscle

easy choice m8

If you actually want to be educated on this topic OP, rather than spout misinterpreted biochem 101 at people, maybe just do some basic searching on pubmed. You're massively overstating the effects of metabolic adaptation.

The likes of Lyle McDonald and Alan Aragon are probably a good place to start.

the absolute state of this post, jesus christ

if you have a scientific background I pity you because clearly fucking none of it went in

CICO works just fine

t. lost 35 lbs pretty much exactly over the time that I calculated I would

Oh no I made that choice about 10 years when I graduated high school. See what you're leaving out is that fat people eat like shit. When I graduated high school I was 240lbs of all stomach. I cut out my 3+ sodas a day and replaced with water, and limited myself to only one plate at dinner. A year later I was 160lbs. People seem to confuse fad diets with a healthy balanced regular diet, especially when trying to attack 'dieting'.

How many of you boys are here?

Attached: 1528750517917.jpg (1111x983, 491K)

The body is a remarkably complex system that can adapt to external and internal stimuli. It will not break the laws of thermodynamics.

No dude you could only eat 1500 calories a day if you're eating 200 grams of sugar you're still gonna look like shit

idmprogram.com/the-biology-of-starvation-calories-part-v/

idmprogram.com/caloric-reduction-vs-fasting-part-9/

Minnosota starvation experiment if you don’t want to bother reading

Not that guy but you keep posting from the same .com source

Exactly what stops the body from shitting undigested or unabsorbed or whatever calories? Obviously you can't get calories from nothing, but surely you can "discard" extra cals somehow?

That guy has sources and studies he lists. And everything is condensed there.

I’m not gonna track down the original studies when the links I’m posting reference them

I have a full 4L jug of water and an empty 5L jug of water. The 5L one has a hole about midway.
If I pour 4L of water into it the 5L jug, about 1,5L will leak out, and the 5L jug will only contain about 2,5L.

Did I break the laws of physics? WHo's to say all the calories you put into your body are absorbed?

Kill yourself reddit

Fair point.

thank you. i changed my opinion on the degree of the decrease in metabolic rate. it seems to be highee than i thought.

and why would the body do that?
if you habe food poisoning, maybe. but it doesn't make sense at all for the body to do this normally.

>I changed my opinion
>on Jow Forums
I’ve never seen this in my life.

I guess have a good day, m8

Yeah then you lose all your gains

Wrong.