Why does /fit/ still shill against keto and IF when simple CICO

>>42397639
I didn't know /fit/ shilled against keto and IF. Those are the best ways to lose weight. I've gone from 250 to 220 in one month using that method and I'm onto my 2nd month now.

>>42397780
30 lbs in a month? What calorie intake did you have?

File: 1488850965515.jpg (51KB, 740x620px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 740x620px

>CICO has been debunked thoroughly

nigger i'ma need some kind of source

>>42397848
1800 a day, but I also work in roofing, do cardio every other day and also workout after my cardio session.

>>42397639
IF is the shit

>>42397639
If anything they shill FOR these things

File: efd.jpg (19KB, 403x392px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 403x392px

>>42397639
>CICO has been debunked
Fuck off with your nonsense.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>42397639
>Implying the reason those two methods work isn't because of a reduction of calories in.

>>42397639

Wait how come when I painstakingly measure my calories my weight goes up and down accordingly?

Just curious whats going on since cico got debunked.

Is it because i also track my macros?

>>42397639
>shill against keto and IF
IF is cutting on easy mode.
Keto is fine if you're obese/diabetic or doing it short term.
>CICO has been debunked thoroughly
We defying laws of thermodynamics now?

File: Into the Trash!.gif (3MB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x225px

>>42397639
>CICO has been debunked thoroughly

Who says this? Why do you keep saying this?

File: 19260331_10158754110890580_2509593630085919060_n.jpg (44KB, 650x628px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 650x628px

Cico works. Not just for cuts but for lean bulks and maintenance / recomp. Its easy, as long as you are consistent with your measuring methodology and track LONG TERM tdee. Gimmick diets are for brainlets and bums, measurement and analytics is for successful smart people.

>>42397639
ITS ALL ABOUT INSULIN FOOLS

>>42397932
I do about 1600 on average as a 250 lb guy

Started 10 days ago and am 10 lbs down now to 240, but I imagine 7 of those pounds were probably water weight

>>42398003
Yes but people who say durr eat less move more as if the only thing that matters is less calories are dumb.

On keto I can have the willpower to resist cravings and burn fat instead of lbm

Why do uneducated people make these bold claims? CICO has been "debunked" in diabetics and obese people. And it hasnt been debunked. The only difference is the reduced insulin sensitivity in tissue causes disproportionate fat storage due to the Randle cycle and glucose sparing. IF and Keto is infinitely more effective in this situation. Jason Fung himself doesnt recommend it for athletes because they have no use for it and the fact that its detrimental when fat storage isnt plentiful enough. Youll enter a catabolic state one way or another, and youl'll either catabolize fat or muscle. For fat fucks, this isnt an issue because they have so much fat.

>>42397639
Keto is retarded.
IF is legit.
Why lump them in the same category?

>>42398228
>CICO has been "debunked" in diabetics and obese people
Source

I too can violate the laws of thermodynamics at will

>watch me whip
>watch me nae nae

>oh shit gains happenin' happenin'

>>42398262
CBA to link you 30 sources. Go watch Jason Fung's conference on Insulin Resistance and CICO. The title is called The Calorie Deception and its on YouTube. Its part of a medical conference for doctors and all the sources are peer reviewed and listed.

>>42397639
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28765272/

Fuck off retard

I don't get keto, so you burn fat instead of carbs how is this better?

>>42398315
>shifting the burden of proof
>conference video as a source
talking out of ass confirmed

IF+Keto has gotten me down 25 lbs in 4 weeks, and it's not slowing down.

The best part is, I'm just not hungry.

>>42398315

>No fat prisoners in Belsen

lol owned bitch

>>42397639
Who the fuck cares about /fit/s obsession on CICO?

Do you think you're going to change anyone's mind with a bait thread and some shitty fucking conference speech?

To be crystal fucking clear I 100% agree with Fung, Ludwig, et.al. that the insulin model of obesity is the solution to the problem.

But you're not going to convince a bunch of mental rejects who get their nutrition information from a sticky and outdated regurgitated advice from the 70's that they're wrong because "fatties are worthless"

Instead of trolling the people who lift why not give sound evidence based nutrition advice to fat fucks coming here looking for weightloss.

Personally I've helped over two dozen fat fucks lose weight and get off over a combined 100 daily medications using the insulin model. Everything from insulin, to blood pressure meds, statins, anti-depressants, and more.

>>42398129
Not that simple, your digestive system is not perfect and doesn't and how calories get distributed also varies.

>>42397916
This. CICO is fucking thermodynamics. Sorry you don't understand basic science OP.

File: corgi.jpg (41KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 736x552px

>>42398529
And yet here you are also making claims without evidence. CICO deniers have no shame.

>>42398547
It's is to an extent, it's all about effientcies

>>42397916
>>42397985
>>42398003
>>42398087
>>42398129
>>42398130
>>42398149
>>42398262
>>42398567
>>42398547
what you eat changes your metabolism, so you can't even measure calories out. CICO is worthless.

>>42397639
Tumblr breaks spacetime translational invariance now? Woah, somebody better call CERN!

>>42398547
I doubt you've taken a physics class past high school level shit, regardless the issue with counting calories is that it's really trial and error as it assumes everyone's body processes macronutrients the same exact way and doesn't account for weight fluctuations in terms of lean body mass or fat. It works, but you might not find your actual base metabolic rate for weeks or months through trial and error. Then there's also the fact that you don't burn the same amount of calories every day. Calorie counting is very tough approximation

>>42398580
By this logic then we can't know anything biologically since MUH METABOLISM

>>42398649
you can measure your watts on different diets, you shouldn't need to count calories to stay lean anyway.

>>42398580
But you can, for example using a metabolic chamber. There are even very sophisticated models to predict changes very accurately. Some changes do indeed promote this (eg, high protein and high fiber diets increase energy expenditure), but the effect is rather small and clinically insignificant.

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-nutr-071811-150705
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/at-niddk/labs-branches/LBM/integrative-physiology-section/research-behind-body-weight-planner/Documents/Hall_Lancet_Web_Appendix.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28210884
http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(11)60812-X.pdf
http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(17)30152-X/fulltext

>>42398664
Yes you do. We live in a world where food can easily have more calories than it is filling. Anyone who claims to stay sub-10% bf without counting calories is frauding or simply not eating.

CICO is physics. The body is not a machine, it does not work on exact numbers. CICO is accurate enough for 99.98% of the population.

>>42398667
>>42398680
do you own a metabolic chamber? if not then stop counting calories like a teenage girl, I eat at least 2500 to 3000 kcal in pure carbs and I'm 10% body fat. If you're eating burgers and shit, yes you probably need to starve yourself to not get fat but if you're eating white rice, beans, fruit then you have so much energy to burn 4000 kcal/day

>>42398692
>lying on the internet for a shitpost

Why are you even wasting the energy when science is literally against you.

>>42398699
just try high carb for a WEEK eating as much food as you want and it'll be impossible to keep fat on. just a week and ignore all studies to confirm your bias.

>>42398706
>try my anecdote which contradicts known nutrition science

Sure, an anonymous poster on a Malaysian cock-ring sizing forum would never lie to me.

File: froomedog.jpg (75KB, 620x696px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 620x696px

>>42398716
you think froome dog is counting kcal?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rX6Na62yYc

>>42398692
You wouldn't need a metabolic chamber because inter-individual variation is not that high if there's access to some basic parameters like weight, sex, age, height, physical activity level, body fat percentage, etc.

https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/weight-management/body-weight-planner

Appeal to ridicule and testimonials don't advance your position.

File: go-be-fat-somewhere-else.jpg (47KB, 562x446px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 562x446px

>>42398437
rather than embarrassing yourself with confusion, go on over to google and start reading how keto works

>>42398529
I eat 1700 kcal a day with daily exercise from a TDEE of 2600.
I try to only eat very low glycemic food.
I also do 18:6 IF

Is that close enough to your program to make it?

>>42398732
He's a fucking professional cyclist. Anyone who's job is intense cardio 5-7 days a week will burn through anything they eat.

You and I, however, are not them and do not do what they do. Same with over 90% of the population. Intense athletes are a minority and not the typical model

>>42398744
I do intense cardio every day too brah, it's easy when you have so much energy from high carb and I don't have to count calories at all

>>42398529
Prove that CICO doesn't work.

>>42398754
>he bikes 200+ km a day at a 30+km/h pace

I guarantee you are nowhere near as active as professional cyclists

>>42398754
durianrider pls go

>>42398764
I do 40km/day on the commute, froome dog is probably taking 4000kcal in carbs every day, I'm only doing 2500

>CICO doesn't work!
>Been eating at a 500 kcal deficit for two months now
>down 20 lbs

Wow really activated my almonds here. I guess I should just stop huh?

>>42398773
>40km a day for commuting purposes is the same as high intensity purpose driven cycling

I know you're shitposting and I'm essentially arguing to myself, but some people are actually as dumb as you in real life.

>>42398783
B-but if you just fasted for two months you'd be down 70lbs and be able to live to 200!

>>42398801
I'd also be a spooky skellington

>>42398754
Not needing to count calories in practice on a healthy lifestyle =/= calories important in theory.

OP is literally a fat earther retard denying the laws of physics.

>>42398830
>fat earther

Kek

>>42398129
>le thermodynamics buzzword

ok pal go eat a plutonium burrito and see if you gain 50lbs overnight.

>>42397639
>muh CICO is wrong despite countless scientific evidence of HUNDREDS of studies, and THOUSANDS of athletes using this method and WORKING for fucking DECADES.
>b-but muh insulin! muh metabolism! you just want to sell coke zero!
Fuck off Jason Fung.

>>42398858
How is that a counterexample to energy balance? There aren't any calories in as there isn't any biological machinery to metabolize plutonium. There would be malabsorption, accumulation in tissues, excretion into urine, sweat, etc.

>>42398915
You know all those defects you listed also occur with carbs proteins and fats to some degree right?

>>42398757
Where in that post did I say CICO doesn't work?

Thermos dynamics is an irrefutable function of the fucking universe. Of course it fucking works you fucking retard.

What I said was that the insulin model for obesity is the real cause.

Let me hold your hand and fucking walk you through this shit.

If you eat 6 carbohydrate meals a day you keep your insulin levels elevated.

Insulin, a hormone, suppresses your leptin response which controls the vagus nerve and downregulates your CNS. the effect of which is increased appetite and lowered energy output.

The presence of insulin also prevents fat cells from releasing fatty acids through lypolisys.

Ergo, the constant consumption of carbohydrates keeps insulin high which increases appetite, increases energy storage as fat, lowers the metabolism, and prevents the mobilization of fat for fuel.

Every single fat fuck you find will have elevated baseline insulin levels irrespective of their glucose levels. They have insulin resistance.

By understanding HOW the different sources of energy affect the hormone response you can better treat the obesity epidemic.

1000 calories of sugar is the same amount of energy as 1000 calories of fat. But what the carbs and fat do to your hormones is completely different.

>>42398962
This guy's got it. When you eat carbs and release a fuckton of insulin into your bloodstream, glucagon(insulin that makes adipose cells release fatty acids) is downregulated. Basically, carbs put your fat stores under a temporary padlock, while fat itself is stored more readily but is also readily available to be released as energy. You also don't have to burn through glycogen stores and access fat directly if you aren't eating carbs

>>42398962
I swear to god I I hear someone mention thermodynamics one more time I'm going to make an anticico thread every day for a week
>implying the human body is as simple as a heat engine
>Actual, genuine retardation

>>42399034
glucagon(hormone* that is responsible...)

>>42398454
What's your routine?

I've done 28 hrs it wasn't that bad. Need to change my diet through.........

>>42398943
Of course, but they do not violate energy balance and the effect sizes tend to be very small.

>>42398692
I can eat my maitenance calories in junk or clean foods and it doesn't change shit. Only really affects me if I'm deficient in nutrients, gtfo.

>>42397639
Wait, keto made me feel like dying.
I'm doing a 20:4 IF route with low carb diet. but I cant do keto. It made me moody and hungry all the time.

>>42398962
>>42398962
>What I said was that the insulin model for obesity is the real cause.
https://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v71/n3/full/ejcn2016260a.html

>Insulin, a hormone, suppresses your leptin response
http://www.ijem.in/article.asp?issn=2230-8210;year=2012;volume=16;issue=9;spage=543;epage=548;aulast=Tsai

>and downregulates your CNS
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306453004000526

>the effect of which is increased appetite
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025169
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X16301152
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844015302917
http://embor.embopress.org/content/13/12/1079
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/289/5487/2122
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v407/n6802/full/407377a0.html
https://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v5/n6/full/nn861.html

>and lowered energy output
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v28/n4s/full/0802861a.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867414015931
http://embomolmed.embopress.org/content/8/3/232
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X09011681

>The presence of insulin also prevents fat cells from releasing fatty acids through lypolisys.
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001485

>Ergo, the constant consumption of carbohydrates keeps insulin high which increases appetite, increases energy storage as fat, lowers the metabolism, and prevents the mobilization of fat for fuel.
http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/06/28/155739

>1000 calories of sugar is the same amount of energy as 1000 calories of fat. But what the carbs and fat do to your hormones is completely different.
http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(17)30152-X/fulltext

>>42398450
>hour long video conference that is from a medical doctor convention discussing advances in medicine and diabetes treatment that links study after study for the hour-long duration of the video as well as cites well understood physiological processes is shifting the burden of proof
>telling you to read (or watch in this case) what is essentially a meta analysis is shifting burden of proof
Just stop replying, you literal retard. Closing your eyes and then screaming "WHERE IS THE PROOF I CANT SEE IT!!!" isnt an argument.

File: DNL+Hellerstein+in+Insel-Turner-Ross+Nutrition+2010[1].jpg (282KB, 494x1600px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 494x1600px

>>42399034
(1) Insulin doesn't instantly stop fat oxidation; there's a temporal and concentration dependence that's based on caloric intake

http://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/

In fact, insulin has some thermogenic effects (see >>42399187), and there's a slight advantage with higher carbohydrate and higher protein diets with respect to weight loss due to this. Similar story with overfeeding.

(2) Physiological fluctuations in glucogon do not influence adipose tissue lipolysis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1991802
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11344211
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17308040
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12552113
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17131145

>>42398962

You can eat 100 calories worth of carbs and nothing else every hour you are awake and still lose weight. If you are in a calorie deficit you will lose weight full stop.

Keto works, but only as hunger management. Keto does not significantly increase your metabolism. At the end of the day it still is just calories in vs. calories out.

>>42398741
The first thing I'd detail is your fat%. If you're simply overweight I would put you on a 500calorie restriction diet on 16:8 IF or a Maintenance calorie diet with one or two days of fasting.

If you were obese I'd send you in for bloodwork to get a baseline of your fasting blood sugar, hbA1C, and insulin levels. If those were normal-ish I would put you on 500 calorie reduction 16:8 with a day of total fast per week. When blood test results come back normal we would remove the fasting day.

For the obese with diabetes, or presenting with any metabolic syndrome symptom, or those with high baseline insulin I would attack it more vigorously with an extended fasting period. Two weeks at the most with a 1 week re-feed on 16:8 before resuming another fast.

Every two cycles of fasting I would get another blood test to monitor progress. When levels are only slightly elevated we'll revert to the diet above.

I have never had an obese person with diabetes continue past 4 two week fasting routines, their insulin levels normalize by then and all but one regained their satiety response.

File: evidence.jpg (122KB, 1199x726px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1199x726px

>>42399209
>Low Carb Vail 2016
>a low carb quack conference for low carb quacks
literally no different from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAOy9PZd_tQ

>>42399187

>The presence of insulin also prevents fat cells from releasing fatty acids through lypolisys.
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001485

"In human adipocytes, HSL gene silencing led to improved insulin-stimulated glucose uptake, resulting in increased de novo lipogenesis"
>Improved stimulated glucose uptake resulting in increased de Novo lypogenesis

Wow inhibition of Hormone Sensitive Lypase(which is what consumption of carbs does) made it easier for people to store fat through de Novo lypogenesis.

Nice argument for carb consumption retard

>>42398580
metabolic efficiency is fairly standard accross people. The entire spread is 500 calories per day around a fairly normal curve. This means that the twinkiest twink and the hammiest planet will only have a metaboloc difference of 500 calories burned per day. As a nitritionist I can tell you that keto definitely does not increase metabolic rate.

>>42399287
Mechanistic myopia and quote mining. There are other downstream effects of enhanced insulin sensitivity that run counter to fat storage as discussed earlier ITT. The net effect in that paper was no increase in adiposity, despite less lipolysis, implying it isn't the rate-limiting step to fat loss. How could you miss that?

>>42399244
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11344211
>We conclude that HG per se does not increase interstitial glycerol (and thus lipolysis)

Injecting people with hyperphysiological levels of glucagon didn't speed up lypolysis. No fucking shit, lypolysis isn't linearly increased with abnornal levels be of glucagon.

I'm assuming the rest of your links are just as retarded, and you only read their fucking titles

>>42399332
The effect wasn't "less lypolysis" it was literally an increase in the propensity for individuals to store fat. There's no reason to read past that

>>42399379
HG is defined in that paper as 1.5 ng/kg·min, which is physiological levels of glucagon in the postprandial state. Another paper in the same link block shows that complete antagonism of even fasting concentrations of glucagon has no effect on lipolysis.

Why are they letting you use a computer if you have downs syndrome? Isn't that against the law? Shouldn't you be playing with legos or something?

>>42399391
>The effect wasn't "less lypolysis"
Look at G in fig 2.

>it was literally an increase in the propensity for individuals to store fat.
Yet they demonstrated no increase in fat depot size, implying other counteracting effects.

>There's no reason to read past that
Living at high altitude increases hemoglobin and lung volume. By your retard logic we should infer from this that tissue oxygenation is improved and ignore the obvious counteracting factor of respiring in an environment with reduced atmospheric oxygen concentration.

File: 1501309148038.gif (3MB, 309x313px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 309x313px

>>42399418
>Why are they letting you use a computer if you have downs syndrome?
My favorite part of /fit/ is when people argue and then basically just devolve into calling each other some form of retarded.

>>42397639
6 days into water fast /fit/. Am i gonna make it?

File: 1498168753345.jpg (4MB, 4608x3200px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4608x3200px

>>42397916
This is our metabolism and you're going to tell me all anybody needs to know is CICO?

>>42399259
Yeah I'm at 34% bf.
high insulin runs in the family, my mother has it and thyroid issues(I don't have thyroid, but I have all the same symptoms as her for high insulin)

However, my tested resting insulin is 100% normal, so idk.

A week long fast huh
I've done 36 hours, but not a week. Sounds pretty crazy, but if you really think it would help, maybe. I need to do a lot of research first.

>>42399874
>biology violates Hess's law
>biology violates the laws of physics

Creationism levels of retardation right here.

>>42399874
Yeah. I can show you car schematics but that doesn't change that gas in = distance gone. Sure, how far you actually get per litre of gas depends on the engine, and how long the engine lasts depends on the quality of gas you put in, but someone can't come up and say "Hey your engine runs 100km/9L and you just put 9L in your tank, but I have this great new coat of paint that'll let you run 200km on that 9 litres like it's nothing!"

That's all that fad diets, detoxes, and all other shit amount to; a new coat of paint to try and fix a busted engine.

File: 1501769545575.png (2MB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 960x1280px

>>42399901
>biology violates the laws of physics

No one has said anything about the laws of physics being broken.
The fact that you're simplifying our complicated energy system to this degree is retarded.

Your body can and will find ways to reduce your energy expenditure if it needs to.

>>42398614
It's also worth noting that the classic 1g carb=4 calories, 1g protein = 4 calories, and 1g fat = 9 calories is only an average. This on top of that most food packaging is, at most, 90% accurate makes it nearly impossible to accurately track calories. And that's not even getting started on how cooking can affect potential calorie absorptive.

This video does well at explaining it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcMBm-UVdII

>>42399971
All I need to know is that those tits violate the laws of my dick.

>>42400009

and what does her penis do for you anon?

I started doing keto and IF just because it triggers people on here for some reason.

>>42399971
At no point does CICO involve the assumption that energy expenditure is a static. Please retake the elementary thermodynamics and differential equations classes you failed.

funny how as soon as I started counting my calories I lost 75 lbs in 6 1/2 months.

must just be a huge coincidence huh.

File: 1366930273181.jpg (41KB, 675x612px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 675x612px

>>42400038

>>42400061
No man you don't understand it's all those evil carbs if you eat carbs every meal then you will get fat! Like all those east asians, a vast majority of them are so obese because of all the god damn rice they eat! We need to hop on meme diets to better prevent this.

>>42400043

New research shows energy expenditure is static and the average adult male will only burn ~2500 calories no matter what.

File: 61V1KHDWKAL[1].jpg (73KB, 479x500px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 479x500px

>>42400081

>>42400080
>meme diets
Kiddo, the keto diet has been around since the 1930s.

>>42400105
Atkins didn't invent the ketogenic diet, he simply capitalised on it during a period of gluttony (and epilepsy).

CICO is the bare minimum for weight loss. Keto, IF, IIFYM, etc work in conjunction with CICO. If you want to do more than the bare minimum you fit your macros, then do keto and/or IF if you want.

I'm convinced every single person that says CICO doesn't work is a fat person that never figured out how to weigh food properly.

>>42400095

Theres nothing wrong with learning everything you know from 4chan, but don't be scared when new information comes across your path.

>>42400122
Speak for yourself low effort bait poster

>>42399997
Nobody gets fat due to small inaccuracies on nutrition labels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FviIXAvUj_U

>>42400131

https://sixtofifteenpercent.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/scientific-american-february-2017.pdf

Don't be afraid, child, if you can handle the big words here you might learn something new.

>>42400113
>Atkins didn't invent the ketogenic diet
Exactly. Keto was formulated in the 1930s to treat epilepsy. Atkins used keto as a template to create his diet and capitalize on it the 80s-90s.

>>42400136
>irrelevant pop sci magazine for teenagers

It's always nice to see a wannabe troll go full retard. Now go back to >>>/b/, little boy, before you hurt yourself.

>>42400136
A review article by the same group who did that work

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/evan.21513/full
>Adjusted TEE, which accounts for effects of body size, did not increase linearly with activity but instead plateaued above ∼200 counts/minute (black triangle), near the 60th percentile of physical activity (each dot: one subject; black line: Loess regression).
>the strongest predictor of both TEE and BMR is body size, particularly fat-free mass

Nothing else was investigated, far from "the average adult male will only burn ~2500 calories no matter what"

I'm just starting to think about doing keto, but if I've got it right it works something like this:
>Your body doesn't get enough carbs to get energy from
>Your body starts preferring using fat for energy
>Your body uses the fat stored in your love handles :3

>>42400273

And I'm wrong how?

>>42400748
A simple contradiction is that their data is adjusted and not stratified for body size and they openly admit this is an important modifying factor. For example, a 600lb individual would not be expected to have a 2500 kcal TDEE.

But it would be much more informative if you'd bother to explain why you believe you're right. Right now you sound about as coherent as a chatbot.

if CICO was debunked how did I just cut 14lbs these past 2 months

>>42399290
what if you're wrong

>>42397639
>thoroughly
That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
CICO is still the best way we have to eyeball weight gain/loss over the short term. It's not supposed to be the be-all-end-all of metabolism, but to be simple and effective.
It's a tool, use it for what it is, adjust it based on your own metabolism and observed long term gain/loss.

>>42401227

Hormones in check

>>42399558
give your body a few months to recover from it if you are planning on a week long fast. to be honest i do fasts longer than a day only once a month. also get your nutrient supplements.

File: 1475077454432.gif (1MB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 499x499px

>>42400116
with keto and IF i don't even need to weigh my food though. i just eat enough to not feel hungry, hit my macros with fat, fibre and protein as long as i don't hit my carb limit and i'm good. and with the fasting state and ketosis my body taps into my body fat to meet my energy needs if i am at a large deficit.

>>42401737

You don't have to count your calories in order to eat less that your TDEE

File: consider.jpg (31KB, 508x412px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 508x412px

CICO is real, but you don't know exactly how much of it your body absorbs and rejects.

>>42401759
yeah that's what i was trying to say but you did it more succinctly

>>42401822
and a lot of what determines how much your body absorbs and rejects is down to hormones. also gut bacteria

>>42401920
>>42401822
Your body can be inefficient and not digest all of the calories you eat. But it can't absorb more than what is present.

If you eat less than your TDEE it shouldn't matter how efficiently your body absorbs calories, you'll still lose weight.
If your goal is to gain weight though it's a different story.

This is the best thing I've read on the subject: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/25/book-review-the-hungry-brain/

CICO is real, but the lipostat has mental effects that cause you to increase CI.

>>42399283
>post meta analysis video that has nothing but peer reviewed science
>"UM ITS IN A VIDEO"
See your own graphic. This is a meta analysis.

I go out of my way to say CICO isn't real irl, I blame things like genetics and say some people just have a faster metabolism.
The fatties are quick to jump on this of course. I want them all in an early grave as possible.

>>42398547
>CICO is fucking thermodynamics.
CICO slows your metabolism, whereby sabotaging the exact thing people use it for. I think it's cruelty to give this as advice to (fat) people who don't have discipline and control over themselves. Or at least tell them up front about the side effects... and prepare them with ways to speed up their metabolism once the weight is gone.

>>42400116
>I'm convinced every single person that says CICO doesn't work is a fat person that never figured out how to weigh food properly.
Strawman. Nobody is saying CICO doesn't work. They say "debunked" because of the hormonal side effects that result in lower TDEE

>>42402403
>ITT: brainlets argue over meme diets

>>42397639
Wait for Dr. Greger's fasting series to come out.

Dr. Michael Greger from Nutrition Facts

File: 51yOGPJEpJL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (31KB, 260x326px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 260x326px

>>42397639

>>42402341
>I think it's cruelty to give this as advice to (fat) people who don't have discipline and control over themselves
You could this exact same thing about prescribing them any fucking diet, not just CICO.

>>42399086
>post on fit for years
>finally go out and apply myself
>get juicy
>skim to see if there's anything interesting in the catalog
>"High Test"
>"Ideals"
>"Height"
>masturbation material in every thumbnail
Leave, anon. This was always the final test.

The majority of the population is insecure kids, just like I was when I did my first shitpost pretending to be a neurosurgeon debating on whether or not milk kills gains.

There's nothing here for anyone that's serious about getting /fit/. /r/fitness isn't even this bad.

>>42398858
>being retarded enough to think humans can digest plutonium

Maybe we should limit cico to bio available calories, oh wait we all knew that because we aren't retards.

>>42401323
What if you're a huge faggot?

For anyone lost in this shit show: CICO hasn't been debunked. It just comes down to Keto and IF being just easy to follow. That doesn't make them more efficient/better, just shows consistency is key when it comes to accomplish your goals.

>>42400081
Link the research then faggot.

>>42398580
>Measure current caloric intake
>Step on a scale
>Consume less calories
>Step on scale
>Keep going until you're at goal.

Oh no, muh metabolic changes of 100cals makes it impossibru to count, it doesn't work.

>>42402972
It isn't about it being easy. It's about CICO fucking your metabolism.

>>42401966
>meta analysis video
Do you take any particular drugs for your mental disability? Go to a special school?

>>42397639
t. fat secretary in her mid 40s

>>42402341
>Or at least tell them up front about the side effects... and prepare them with ways to speed up their metabolism once the weight is gone.

I think it's cruelty to tell people intermittent fasting and ketogenic diets do this when there is exactly zero high quality evidence to support that claim.

File: 1470380398336.jpg (16KB, 319x320px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 319x320px

>>42401966
Really? What was the search strategy? The inclusion criteria? The CI and statistical ratios? Did they use R? Matlab? Was it peer-reviewed by the International YouTube Board of Broscience?

>>42397639
fung never said cico doesn't work, just that there's more that matters when you're obese and/or have diabetes. still he misses some major points

>>42403477
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/382843
>neither dietary regimen, combined with modest physical activity, was associated with long-term reductions in resting metabolic rate that exceeded decreases anticipated with the achievement of a lower body weight

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/72/5/1088.abstract
>Energy restriction produces a transient hypothyroid-hypometabolic state that normalizes on return to energy-balanced conditions. Failure to establish energy balance after weight loss gives the misleading impression that weight-reduced persons are energy conservative and predisposed to weight regain. Our findings do not provide evidence in support of adaptive metabolic changes as an explanation for the tendency of weight-reduced persons to regain weight.

>>42403477
Do you seriously need research to tell you that eating 2000 calories of SUGAR every day will fuck your endocrine system?
That's a particularly stupid corner case, CICO works fine as long as you don't try to put yourself in the stupid corner.

>>42397780
Theres no good reason to be fat in the first place.

>>42401822
If it's not a meme you try for 3 days you can soon refine your numbers from the averages

>>42402341
>Slows your metabolism

That's why you exercise. It has been demonstrated time and time again that if you add in cardio and strength training your loses remain constant, not to mention I have seen several studies on IF that demonstrated mice and people always lost the same amount of weight when calories were controlled, but people reported it was easier with IF.

In other words, with IF, the control that mattered was still CICO. There is literally no way to lose weight than to eat less. I don't even get what you retards are implying by your "metabolism slowing" Are you saying that it will slow to a crawl and fucking stop functioning you dipshit? Are you saying starvation is fucking impossible?

Of course eating less will make you lose weight. And unless you enter a literal resting state while doing it, only waking up and laying down doing absolutely nothing, if you actively use your body it won't suddenly become super efficient and burn a shitload less calories for the same work. That literally makes no sense. It does mean your body may try to do LESS work, but it can't if you exercise. Think before you speak.

>>42403477
Explain to me or show me demonstrated research that shows when you eat less, your body becomes insanely efficient. Also demonstrate why your body would not do this ALL THE TIME, as it makes almost no sense for it to not always utilize it's more efficient state, because you would require less food.

Spoiler, anything you can demonstrate would boil down to decreases in physical activity, which can be circumvented with exercise.

>>42404589
This you don't even need to know how much your body metabolizes, just go by your weight.

Not losing weight after a week of eating at x kcal/day?

Reduce your daily kcal/day by y.

Still not losing weight?

Reude your daily kcal/day once again by y.

Keep going until you've found your sweetspot.

It can seriously be written as a simple programming formula, which will GUARANTEE you results.

//in KG
double dailyCalories = maintenanceCalories;
double weight = startingWeight;
double weeklyWeightloss = 0.0;
for(int week = 0; weeklyWeightloss<1.0; week++) {
dailyCalories = dailyCalories - 200;
double newWeight = measureWeight();
weeklyWeightloss = weight - newWeight;
weight = newWeight;
}

Anyone who says CICO is "debunked" is retarded.

File: watching anime.gif (2MB, 200x109px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x109px

>>42400135
What the fuck does reverse dieting even actually work? It is physically possible to raise your metabolic rate by slowly increasing your calorie intake?

>keto
>relies on inefficient wasteful process of burning fat to cover ongoing energy needs because you deprive your body of its preferred fuel
>but it uses body fat
>which gets immediately replenished by eating more fat

brilliant logic there

>>42397639
the fuck cico has been debunked.
if you want to do keto then do it, but shut the fuck up about it. no one cares.

>>42405646
>>which gets immediately replenished by eating more fat
That's not how it works, anon.

>>42404767
>It can seriously be written as a simple programming formula
>Actually writes it
Enjoying your first Java course? Your for loop is trash.

>>42399955
Underrated post

>>42404767
Shit-tier programming
>Pajeet detected

>>42405960
That's exactly how it works.

>>42406015
The fat you eat doesn't immediately turn into body fat, anon.

>>42405962
I'm a software developer. I've written the code in a fashion that a non-programmer with a bit of maths knowledge would also theoretically understand, as I know not everyone would understand classes and abstraction.

>>42406044
>I've written the code in a fashion that a non-programmer would also theoretically understand
You're just a non-programmer
>not everyone would understand classes and abstraction
Holy shit you're retarded

>>42406041
It has the shortest route to get there and is the easiest to store out of all the macros.

>>42397639
Seriously OP, how the fuck did you grow to 6'3" if you don't like eating large quantities of food?

>>42397780
>loses 30 lbs in a month
>while also eating 1800cals a day
>also exercises every other day
>also has a laborious job that would burn a ton of calories
>contributes it to keto/IF
I don't know if that was a solid deduction on your part. Probably could have had the same/similar results on another diet. That being said, keto is probably superior for fat loss

>>42399290
I'm not so sure keto is supposed to change metabolic rate; it just changes the source of energy

>>42406041
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/1/132.abstract
>in the postprandial state, most of the dietary fat is channeled into adipose tissue

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/42330/1/WHO_TRS_894.pdf#page=121
>Fat: the capacity for fat storage in the body is virtually unlimited and excess dietary fat does not markedly increase fat oxidation. Excess dietary fat is readily stored in adipose tissue depots with a very high efficiency (about 96% ).

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/role-of-dietary-fat-in-adipose-tissue-metabolism/81F008CA02B3CD97776C33A429C12DBB
>Whereas protein and carbohydrate degradation and oxidation are closely adjusted to their intakes, fat balance regulation is less precise and that fat is more likely to be stored than oxidised.

>>42405646
>develop heart disease in the process

go on any keto forum and it's just fat fucks that are elated that they don't have to give up bacon to lose a few pounds

>>42397639
cico isn't as simple as it's said to be but weight loss always stays within the wider boundaries of cico

>>42399955
>I can show you car schematics but that doesn't change that gas in = distance gone
Good point.