Reminder that your shitty mom diets are just shitty mom diets designed for people too stupid to diet regularly

PALEOCHADS RISE UP

Attached: F30B303A-F4FF-4772-96D3-B9BB0473BF40.png (219x279, 117K)

Im convinced keto works for fatties bc they have added accountability because they never shut up about it.

CICO is pure reddit reddit atheism smarter-than-you nonsense.

Lol CICO cunts can't understand hormones

Ok so if I eat at a 500 Cal surplus on keto or omad will I lose weight?

Carbs help with water retention, so when you start a keto diet you drop a lot of water weight
This tricks fatties into thinking they lost 5lbs of fat in 3 days, so they spam their shitty meme diet everywhere claiming it's a miracle

All discussion of nutritional complexities is inapplicable to society at large. We now know more about nutrition than weve ever known and people are getting fatter. The knowledge is moot because people will always make poor choices or remain willfully ignorant. The whole of contemporary nutrition discourse is now just calling other people retarded.

Didn't this retard also post a meme suggesting protein and carbs have the same insulin response?

Oh so you mean it's factual and doesn't hide behind unfalsifiability and it irritates people who don't like to scrutinize their ideas.

Samefagging, found it.
Conveniently (read dishonestly) the measurement is taken after two hours and doesn't include rate/speed of response

Attached: 51036653_384289842118426_8298180418521000952_n.jpg (1080x1080, 139K)

What's your point? The only variable that can change is your individual self. My post still stands.

It's absurd reductionism

Absurd reductionism would be saying that calories are the only thing that matters. I have seen maybe 1-2 retards that say a pure sugar diet would work so long as you follow CICO. There's more to it, but calories are very very important. Unless you can show me a study where someone lost weight in a particular diet at a caloric surplus it is clear that CICO is an important, though not the sole, consideration

Thanks for admitting to making bait

Not even the same person, until one of you fags answers whether you can lose weight on a caloric surplus your cries of "hurr hurr cico is dumb because muh insulin" are the bait

>pure sugar diet would work so long as you follow CICO.
Work for what? You can lose weight on this diet, but it will more than likely impact your health overall and your muscles at best will only atrophy as much as if you were fasting (but probably more)

Here's why CICO doesn't work in real life.

The overwhelming majority of the time foods are labeled wrong or cunts can't measure what ever foods they eat properly. Get MFP open and search chicken and rice curry or some shit and you'll have hundreds of results with numbers.

>until one of you fags answers whether you can lose weight on a caloric surplus
Easy you consume a block of wood with 20,000kcal. You shit it out and don't gain any weight. A calorie is a physics term, that doesn't translate to nutrition very well. What you eat and when you eat matters in real life examples. Ultimately if you gain 10kg of weight with say 60% of it being fat, it's negative progress vs gaining 7kg with 6 of it being muscle.

Reread the statement, I'm saying that it doesn't work. And it likely wouldn't work because pure sugar probably fucks your metabolism so much due to lack of other macros and micro nutrients. I suppose if you kept reducing your daily as your body functions dwindle and your TDEE lowers you might still lose weight, albeit in a disastrous manner

Even if it does fuck your metabolism, then you CO drops and you need to drop your CI.
Is there a chance you won't lose weight fasting?
Is a grain of sugar going to overcome the caloric deficit from the fast? Are two? There is some point where if you eat enough sugar, you won't lose weight. But before that, you will

So CICO works just fine, it's people that are broken. Gotcha.

Read the second part.

Go drink 100ml of petrol. It has roughly 800kcal. You reckon it has the same effect on the body as 800kcal worth of meat? Calories is the wrong term to use when thinking nutrition.

Calories in nutrition refer to what is available to us to use as energy. If we counted everything, plants would be more calorie dense because of all the cellulose (mainly) that we can't digest.

>The overwhelming majority of the time foods are labeled wrong
What foods are labeled wrong? I do know that FDA allows something like 20% deviation on listed values, but not every food is going to be that much off, and food like chicken breast isn't labeled but rather has several values you can research yourself.
>cunts can't measure what ever foods they eat properly
That's a fault of dumb cunts and not cico though
>Get MFP open and search chicken and rice curry or some shit and you'll have hundreds of results with numbers
That's because you don't search dishes you search ingredients. Chicken breast as an individual component isn't going to deviate by huge amounts. I recall doing research myself and taking a few different values (usually at different amounts of chicken) didn't show much difference between them.
>Easy you consume a block of wood with 20,000kcal.
Name a food whose nutrients are as nonbioavailable as wood. There's what, celery? Besides, high fiber foods might have less calories utilized than listed but high fiber foods tend not to have many calories listed in the first place so you'll be off by a miniscule amount. You certainly won't absorb more calories from a food than are listed (accounting for the allowed error).
>Ultimately if you gain 10kg of weight with say 60% of it being fat, it's negative progress vs gaining 7kg with 6 of it being muscle.
Well I definitely don't disagree with that, I'm one of the anons saying that CICO isn't end all be all but rather that it's a very important consideration for losing weight and that I doubt keto or omad let's you lose weight if you don't also make sure you're not eating a surplus

Right that's what I said in my last line or so. You can probably adjust the amount you eat to still get below your plummetting TDEE to lose weight

Okay eat 1kg of carbs vs 1kg of meat a day.
Overtime your body composition is drastically different (not to mention other stuff like mental, dental, skin, etc) and ultimately that's what matters.

>that we can't digest
Exactly, you're understanding now. We digest and metabolise carbs, fats, protein, alcohol, etc all differently. They act differently and change our body composition.

I only hear you smug faggots online saying people cram shit down your throat more than anyone. You're just a little crab in a bucket pulling on people who try things different.

Suprise suprise! Genetics vary and people respond with a degree of variance to other diets!

You completely missed the point. The point is CICO isn't what our body understands. It's an oversimplification of a very complicated process. Guys on tren will gain weight (muscle) even with a caloric deficit.

CICO works as well as telling a homeless person in order to become wealthy they just need to get more money than they spend.

Consider this. Lets do CICO but the variable subjects are the people and what they eat. We subject the people from birth to adulthood with the same amount of calories but different macros. The control groups are Vietnamese girls vs Sudanese men.

What's your hypothesis? Will they be the exact same weight? Same body fat or musculature?No, of course not. They have different hormone profiles that ultimately change their ability to use food.

I don't think I did. I fully understand that macros matter for body composition and metabolism but my original point is that there is no diet where a person with a TDEE of 2000 is going to lose weight eating 2500. If someone is following a diet, let's say keto with some low carb greens, and they are eating at a 500 surplus, they will not lose weight. Period. If their goal is to lose weight, regardless what body composition they're aiming for, it wont work. They will not lose that weight because they are at a surplus. I doubt there's any other they where they'd lose weight with a surplus either. Would you agree with that?

My entire point is that while cico is not the only consideration, people saying cico is irrelevant are wrong. Cico doesn't stand for "calories in calories out but also literally nothing else matters", so when people say cico doesn't work it means they're saying that caloric measurement doesn't work period and I disagree with that as I've had experiences both with gaining and losing weight. Being a Skelly realizing "bro I eat a lot" being a lie and started to gain weight once I tracked calories to eat surplus worked. So did losing weight when I did my first cut, by taking the amount of calories I was eating a day and... reducing them.

>implying I said macronutrients don’t matter
Kys retard

>Being a Skelly realizing "bro I eat a lot" being a lie and started to gain weight once I tracked calories to eat surplus worked. So did losing weight when I did my first cut, by taking the amount of calories I was eating a day and... reducing them.

So you're a skelly with empirical evidence that can't wrap their head around hormones so you utilise CICO to make sense of things.

>leddit spacing
>can't even put together a sound and coherent population study of macronutrient intake a body weight outcomes
>absolutely no mention of daily activity levels
>doesn't understand the part of CICO is to establish baseline caloric intake to maintain a given body weight for a given gender
color me surprised

Once you get a handle on their TDEE (which, sure, can vary with genetics), will different people vary between weight loss and weight gain on a 500 Cal surplus? Also, not sure if you're the same user, earlier it was said that we just don't know enough about the real calorie content of food for calories to matter, do you think we have enough of a grasp of an individual's hormonal profile and genetics to know how they'll react to certain diets without experimenting anyway and making sweeping statements about keto or whatever being good is pointless?

Again, sounding like a broken record here, will someone lose weight on a 500 calorie surplus? Just answer that question for me. Sure, determining TDEE is going to be important and influenced by individual hormonal profiles but can you lose weight eating more calories than maintenance?

I meal prep for the week, same foods, same grocery shop, same meals everyday ,weight everything, currently avoiding eating outside or stuff i didn't prepare.
Training/cardio consistent through the week.
When i cut 800kcal (mostly carbs, because i try to eat 1g protein, 0.5g fat/lb, no more, no less), i've lost like 2lbs per week on the first 3 weeks, then slowed considerably up to almost stalling.
Then felt much more cold and lost some strength.
Around 6 weeks into the cut, i increased the calories (mostly carbs) by 300kcal. Weight remained the same for around 2 weeks, then it was dropping again much more slowly.

In my case, i still believe CICO works, but the carb intake influence the amount of water retention, which explains the first 2 weeks or so.
Then, the body adapts to the caloric restriction (over time) and adjust TDEE, that when the refeeds or "diet breaks" make sense.
Finally, i have to believe the final piece is something like pic related.

t. cutting since late january

Attached: woosh.jpg (960x351, 38K)

what?

Paleo makes you feel like a man tho. I used it to clean bulk at a huge caloric surplus and I feel like a fucking animal all day everyday