This kills the CICO idiots
medium.com
>Throughout this time, we adjusted calorie intake to keep the participants at their START weight. So if someone’s metabolism speeded up and they began to lose weight, we would have provided extra calories.
>However, even through participants in the 3 Test Diet groups had the same average weight, metabolism differed remarkably (see Figure 3). Total energy expenditure was about 250 calories a day greater on the low- compared to the high-carbohydrate diet.
lol the study is inconclusive
>In conclusion, our study cannot “prove” the CIM is true.
>energy expenditure went up
You have no idea what 'CICO' even means.
>It doesn't matter that the diet type increases your energy expenditure.
>A calorie of fat is the same as a calorie of sugar
Weight is a shit measure to compare energy expendature too. The diet (and outside uncontrolled varriables) can impact muscle mass as well as lipid and water retention. Use measures that will give you decent info not just weight. Fucking retards.
A biologically assimilable calorie is, retard. Nobody denies that uranium 235 is useless for metabolism.
>metabolism is independent of food consumption
imagine believing this lmfao
Jow Forums please stop, you retards are getting more popsci than /sci/
>This isn’t a matter of will power. In the battle between mind and metabolism, metabolism wins.
COPE, there is a guy who literally STARVED himself for an entire YEAR to get lean, if you can't handle caloric restriction you should fucking neck yourself
calorie in CALORIE OUT, if you change calorie out, thats still CICO
so you agree calories differ in quality
Increased energy expenditure here may simply be a byproduct of the poor way they used to measured it. I would be cautious of the finding until it gets replicated with better techniques
biorxiv.org
Also, body fat wasn't looked at. This study
academic.oup.com
suggests that EE increases may be due to catabolism of lean mass and not body fat, which is known to be inhibited by carbs
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Eating fewer calories makes you hungrier and smaller.
Which slows your metabolism and has a whole host of survival mechanisms in place to change how your body works.
No, I think that predicted calorie content (like that measured by Atwater factors for example) differs from actual calories. Obviously someone with lactose intolerance who drinks milk isn't gonna get the calories from lactose that are on the label, or similarly with someone who eats raw nuts and shits half them out from poor digestion, someone who eats a high protein diet and spends a lot of energy in the kidneys and liver metabolizing them and excreting the nitrogenous waste products, etc Something could make fat metabolism more inefficient so you don't get all the theoretically calculated calories from it. Maybe increased mitochondrial uncoupling that would partly mimic DNP
>CICO is just thermodynamics and therefore never wrong
True but its also never useful. It's like giving financial advice and just saying "spend less than you earn bro" its boring tautological nonsense.
So I take it you have no savings in your bank account. Both CICO and "spend less than you earn" are basic and necessary requirements for their respective goals. If you're unable to take care of the first step, it doesn't matter what you do afterwards, it's not going to work
>Buy broken clothes from the flea market for a job that requires you to interact with people
>Get fired for looking unprofessional
>LEL CICO WORKS
>bodily processes can somehow defeat the laws of physics
calories in calories out retard
you can precisely measure how many calories go in, just because humans can't precisely measure calories out does not mean CICO doesn't work
Damn nigga. Such a hard wipe ass abit nobody replying in fear
>he doesn't take an ounce of U-235 as a pre workout
Do you even leave humanity behind bro?
>uses an argument based on calorie expenditure to """prove""" that calorie expenditure/intake is invalid
When was it you found out you had the IQ of a tadpole?
I love it when people like you completely misunderstand my point and post as if you're smart. It's cute.
Well then it can still be CICO but then CO may depend on the type of CI.
But that has failed to be shown under rigorous experiments.
I can't help but wonder what kind of people are behind the anti-cico posts when an unmotivated slob like myself managed to lose 50kgs on it. I don't think there's anyone on earth more rockbottom than me.
People who think you can lose more weight on their diet
>spend less than you earn bro
objectively the best option