Calories in/calories out is bullshit

>>42748352
Sorry but this video is bullshit.
Stop being a lazy cunt and just count your calories. It is the easiest thing you lazy fat fuck

>>42748352
Clickbait shit. Of course the macronutrients you eat are going to affect the rate at which you lose weight. The point still stands that for most people eating less calories than their body requires will make them lose weight.

File: lulz.jpg (57KB, 640x619px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 640x619px

>>42748454
>>42748459
>"it is far easier to fool a man than it is to convince him he has been fooled"
Stay salty, caloriecucks.

>>42748511
stay fat, fatfuck

>>42748352
Let's break this ignorant garbage apart

0:50
Fat idiots anecdotally reporting that CICO doesn't work is not the same as an extremely controlled 5 sigma particle detector result replicated with tens of thousands of neutrino events. The nutrition science equivalent would be a systematic review and meta-analysis of hundreds of inpatient metabolic chamber experiments demonstrating a violation of CICO, while some institutionalized schizophrenic claiming they've been abducted by aliens from another galaxy would be the physics equivalent of the former.

1:5
The Pima observation is univariate ecological data, basically on the same level of empirical rigour as an anecdote. Their obesity can easily be explained with their abundant high calorie high palatability rations and new lack of physical labor in the absence of farming. No magic required.

2:46
An outpatient trial using self-reported intake with no method of checking nor enforcing dietary complaince. Self-reported intake from fatasses is not reliable.

3:20
Autistic ramblings about fat cell composition and trivial differences in food calorie content and absorption are irrelevant. They do not invalidate the principle of adjusting calorie intake based on a bodyweight/bodyfat measurement every few days until goals are reached. Basically Bayesian updating assuming these variables are not known to infinite precision yet he creates a straw man to suggest anyone implied otherwise. Also, some BBC puff piece exclusively using foods that rely on high school dropouts at Subway and Starbucks to comply with corporate average quantities of condiments, syrups, etc and small goods companies with huge batch-to-batch variation is not representative of weighing individual ingredients of foods at home or consistently mass-produced ones.

5:20
Differences in calorie content among cooked and raw foods are readily available to any toddler with access to google.

>>42748352
>>42749817
5:57
This fucktard is so verbally impaired that he believes CICO applied to humans somehow includes non-metabolizable and non-digestible calories.

7:00
He also made his scientifically illiteracy once again evident by thinking he can use some shitty table scale to detect mass differences in batteries depending on the charge state-https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/34424

7:30
Calorie dense foods tend to be more fattening because they are less satiating. A mandatory high school nutrition class teaches you this.

8:03
'The biochemistry is more complicated than that"-not really https://books.google.com/books?id=hrdRROeCI9IC&lpg=PA263&pg=PA263#v=onepage&q&f=false

8:17
Invariances among different metabolic pathways and bomb calorimeters like Hess's Law are now 'magical wizard physics'. He basically admits to being a Downs syndrome patient and epitomizes the "The thing about smart mother fuckers is that sometimes they sound like crazy mother fuckers to stupid mother fuckers" meme.

9:27
Cellular respiration is a combustion reaction, i.e. burning. Calorie-containing substances can be burned. ATP production from macronutrient calories is a simple arithmetic tier computation. ATP does mechanical work when it binds to ATP-consuming proteins, etc. providing energy for the reaction. Heat is defined as the flow of energy during the process of achieving thermal equilibrium. This is all middle school and high school shit that he utterly fails to comprehend. It's great evidence that proof of an IQ >70 should be required before being allowed to make internet videos.

>>42749817
>>42749847
God bless you based nutrition anon

File: lul.jpg (43KB, 445x482px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 445x482px

>>42748550
I'm 10% bodyfat, but damn you faggots are easy to bait

File: iu[1].jpg (12KB, 248x251px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 248x251px

>>42749817
>>42749847
You are the epitome of the autist in pic related. Get a fucking life, friend. Hope your ego wasn't bruised by the cognitive dissonance

But nobody denies that CICO isn't exact science.

Metabolizing shit costs energy in and of itself. Storing fat you eat costs energy, freeing it for use costs energy, metabolizing it into glucose for your muscles to use costs energy again.
Carbs on the other hand are treated differently and are metabolized differently. Muscles store glucose and so does the liver.

Or in short, glucose stored in the muscle that got there from ingesting sugar is a lot easier for your body to access than glucose obtained from fat which was stored from your body converting your excess glucose into fat.

This is why Keto diets are a thing, you don't eat carbs, so the body is forced to constantly go into the fat cells for its glucose supply. This burns "extra" energy as your body needs to run millions of little factories transforming fat into glucose. This is also why people who start keto feel like shit, it takes your body time to adapt and get all those little factories up and running.

This all being said, CICO still rings true, you just need to account for the fact that 1kcal of fat ingested is not the same as 1kcal of carbs ingested. For our purposes however the differences between the two are rather minute and not worth doing the extra mathematical legwork for.

>>42750094
>Prove with note of today's date and time.

>>42750140
Yeah dude, a guy spreading some knowledge in a fitness related discussion is more autistic than someone trying to spread bad information for funsies.

>>42749817
>>42749847
Don't put this much effort into arguing with the equivalent of a moon landing conspiracist.

People like OP are pointing out flaws to CICO in practice but do not fully understand CICO in principle.

>>42750255
>This burns "extra" energy
The EE increase is explained by lean mass catabolism otherwise you'd see more fat mass loss in these experiments

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001650851730152X
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/104/2/324

>>42750140
>can't disprove his argument
>resorts to calling him an autist

>>42748352
>not sure if bait or completely fucking retarded.
I bet you're a flat earther too.

>>42750140
>gets BTFO
>resorts to ad hominem attacks

>>42748352
The final redpill is that actually all important.

>>42750140
Like how your ego apparently was?

Well that was really interesting, it made me question, why do we even measure food in calories anyway? Who came up with this idea?

>>42750841
Nature, I guess when multicellular organisms first began converting matter into heat and mechanical energy.

How is sugar in fruit good but sugar in corn bad?

>>42750140
You lost this one, anon

>>42750891
Shittons of fiber and micronutrients. Also, You dont typically eat a whole lot of fruit the sane way you do corn.

OP claiming to be 10% body fat post pics with time stamp

Cico denier and low carber / ketoer are the flat earther conspiracy theorist of nutrition ( those who believe it's the optimal way to diet , not those who do it for the purpose of weight lose acknowledging it's unealthy ).

All of their guru's are weird book & supplement sellers or people struggling with so much eating disorder that they need to cut 2-3 food group / a whole fucking macro from their diet to control their bad eating habits .

>>42750140
>Gets assblasted
>y-you have no life

File: 1483162957823.jpg (163KB, 625x604px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 625x604px

>>42750265
I know you guys love pictures of men, but I'm not going to take a shirtless photo and post it on the internet for you just prove a mild claim.

File: Read this post in a retard voice.png (426KB, 516x648px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 516x648px

>>42750400
>bad information
The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

>>42751129
>Track calories eaten carefully
>Track activities and cardio carefully

>Actual weight loss close to exactly match planed weight loss;

CICO IS BULLSHIT REHHHHHHHH IT'S ALL ABOUT THEM MEANS CARBS ,I CAN'T CONTROL MYSEFL NEAR A CHIPS

File: lol.jpg (40KB, 560x400px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 560x400px

>>42750400
>>42750612
>>42750666
>>42750826
>>42750895
>>42751054
see
>>42750094

Holy shit you guys are retarded. Thanks for the (You)s. I must say though that other boards have much funnier retorts for baiting attempts like this. Probably why I stopped coming to /fit/. A bunch of small-minded dyels who think in very dogmatic and simplistic ways.
Thanks for the laughs though, I'm out.

File: IMG_1310.jpg (132KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 450x450px

>>42748550
Wew lad

>>42751182
>still can't retort properly
wow good job faggot, get off our board

>>42751182
Ok see you in ten minutes.

File: IMG_1112.jpg (45KB, 400x352px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 400x352px

>>42751110
Grow a pair mate
Time to nut up or shut up

>>42748352
He's right. Maybe not 100% right, but 90% right. I failed to lose weight multiple times with CICO diets, and I've lost 20 lbs and counting on my first "negative calorie" diet without logging a damn thing. Applying thermodynamics to food labels is the most widely accepted broscience bullshit there is.

>>42751283
>I am too unintelligent to understand it so it must be broscience

>>42751370
Of all the fucking troll responses you could have given to that post, why would you go with too complicated when CICO is itself is a gross oversimplification of human metabolism?

File: 1480621878623.jpg (39KB, 480x481px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 480x481px

>>42751283
>Too smart to weight food properly
>>42751596
that gross oversimplification doesn't change the fact that 99% Of people will lose 1 kg week if they do a deficit of 700 , the only hazardous part is the first 1-2 week were what you calculated on a tdee calculator may not be exact , you just need to adjust based on that .


Fat people are fucking dumb , only retard would get fat in the first places , you can't trust the amount they report , if you police them like babies you'll see why "CICO doesn't work"

>Take half a load of bread
>Input a slice in MFP

>>42751629
And that's why a lot of fat slob praise keto / paleo / low carb / fasting , it's the only fucking way they manage to not eat a boatload of calories , and then they believe it was the evil carbs .

File: 1501100370982.jpg (44KB, 1102x658px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1102x658px

>>42751182
>I was only pretending to be retarded!

Gee you really got us

>>42751182
Like you ever leave the Internet.

>>42751629
Every fucking time someone points out the problems with CICO it's this same autistic garbage response.

>Hurr you ate 1k calories without logging it

Fuck you dude, I logged every god damn bit of food and water I took in. If my CICO diets had failed because I was cheating every day then I would have failed on the negative calorie diet too. You just want to feel like an expert at something and you can't accept that the fact that you might have fallen for a meme. Low GI/GL, high fiber, water rich, unprocessed food is the key to weight loss. Logging Twinkies that fit your macros/TDEE on MFP is a recipe to hover at the same weight for the rest of your life.

File: 1478479699157.jpg (13KB, 500x259px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 500x259px

>>42751720
you know maybe you initially OVERESTIMATED your TDEE , just because the website estimate 2000kcals/day to lose weight doesn't means it's accurate ,that's the ONLY inaccurate part about CICO

Offcourse your meme starvation diet work , you're way under your real TDEE .

>Mfw accidentally made a thread instead of a reply

>>42751596
Why are you operating under the category error that CICO can simplify human metabolism in the first place? Color charge conservation isn't a gross oversimplification of the sun's nuclear processes, it's a fundamental component of them.

>>42751746
>you know maybe you initially OVERESTIMATED your TDEE
Thanks for pointing out another one of the problems with CICO dieting.

>Offcourse your meme starvation diet work , you're way under your real TDEE .
>starvation
I eat more by volume than I ever did while attempting CICO diets; probably more calories too. The last time I starved myself was the chicken, rice, egg, and vegetable meals that I got off of Scooby's channel and divided into perfect portions to fit my allotted calories per meal.

>Mfw accidentally made a thread instead of a reply
These are the people preaching about >muh thermodynamics

>>42751791
A calorie is a measure of potential chemical energy based on conversion into heat energy by burning. The human body does not magically process that energy with perfect efficiency into kinetic energy/stored fat. Factors like glycemic index influence how the energy is ultimately used by the body.

>>42748352
>cooking food adds calories

File: image.gif (936KB, 220x179px) Image search: [Google]

936KB, 220x179px

>>42751182
I fucking love this board, I'm always laughing

>>42748511
>caloriecuck
T-thanks for insulting the fact I'm well diciplined?

>>42751829
>A calorie is a measure of potential chemical energy based on conversion into heat energy by burning.
>The human body does not magically process that energy with perfect efficiency into kinetic energy/stored fat.
At no point are these contradicted by CICO.

>Factors like glycemic index influence how the energy is ultimately used by the body.
Evidence?
http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v71/n3/full/ejcn2016230a.html

>>42751720
Same, I did 1500 or less for a year and stopped losing anything a couple months in. Asked /fit and all I got was 'hurrr you're probably not counting soda'.

I just started doing 20/4 at around 1200 calories and I lost 15lbs in 2 weeks - obviously lots of that is water weight, but its the first weight loss I've had in 6 months with hardly a change in calories.

Feel free to explain what is going on here, but one of these things works and the other is a waste of my fucking life

>>42751894
>1500 calories -> 1200 calories .
>with hardly a change in calories.


I wonder if enlarged adipose tissues make people dumber .

>>42751872
Lol wtf is that gif?

>>42751894
Oh god you cucked your metabolism so fucking hard ,
A farewell to food .

>>42751911
How?

I spent 9 weeks on my first ever cut this summer, weighted food and measured everything.

Lost about 25 lbs, gained back only a couple, and got pretty fucking ripped.

I fail to understand how anyone can claim it doesn't work for them. If anything, I regret having too big deficit, lost a bit too much muscle for my liking, but it sure as fucked worked

>>42751884
>nature.com
Have some real articles:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0013250/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0059731/

The book Wheat Belly has an entire chapter on glycemic index that's packed with citations, if you care to actually learn about nutrition.

>>42751903
>Hurr durr fatty so dumb

>>42751720
I have many food intolerances, basically can't eat 99% of processed foods so my diet is usually meat, rice, spinach, yoghurt
when I was undiagnosed I would eat large pizzas and was called a liar when I said what I ate, my body just didn't digest most of the food I ate.

so now with my clean diet, I eat what these preachy cunts swear by and I can control my weight with CICO, sure it's not accurate, but it's accurate enough that I can gain or lose weight based on the amount of calories I eat

whenever I see these posts they all state CICO is a meme, it's not real! (and recently then tell everyone the magic of fasting! which is also CICO) and they break down and nit pick the whole thing without explaining exactly how nutrition work

it amazes me that people tell others to not count calories as that never works but just switch to whole foods, well whole foods still contain calories and it's just harder to reach your calorie needs because it fills you up more, you can also gain weight by eating more whole foods than your body needs, I know because I do it

point is, CICO does work, it's not 100% accurate, but it works

>>42752027
>real articles
A publication in EJCN isn't a real article? How so?

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0013250/
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0059731/
(1) These are all outpatient trials. Not isocaloric, isonitrogenous, or fiber-matched. They are not even designed/powered to test your claims.
(2) What do you make of https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0012817/

>The book Wheat Belly has an entire chapter on glycemic index that's packed with citations, if you care to actually learn about nutrition.
http://aaccipublications.aaccnet.org/doi/pdf/10.1094/CFW-57-4-0177
Post relevant citations and arguments here. Not a gish gallop.

>>42752054
You're eating a strict diet of good foods, so I would expect you to be able to control your weight. I won't comment on fasting because I haven't done that research and don't even have anecdotal experience, but losing weight based solely on CICO is like crabwalking up a mountain. You might get there (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Recipes/twinkie-diet-short-term-fix-long-term-problem/story?id=11756710), but it's far from the ideal way to do it. Based on my reading of the research that's out there and my personal experience, controlling what you eat trumps monitoring how much you eat. A year ago I would have told you the opposite.

>>42752183
>You're eating a strict diet of good foods, so I would expect you to be able to control your weight
yes, by following calories in vs calories out, people here frequently post to count calories, cut out processed crap, stop drinking sodas and hit your macros I'm guessing you're one of the people that just stopped at the calorie counting part and then blame others for your lack of common sense

>>42748352
cal in<cal out is true, but it's not the full story. Somebody proved it when they went on a twinkie diet with a multivitamin and lost weight. But surely a twinkie diet will not help somebody keep weight off. You cannot sustain yourself just eating twinkies. You will be hungry, tired, nonathletic, and essentially useless.

You need fats (implying), carbs (implying), and protein. Diets vary largely, but none of you have ever said that vegetables are a scam - not the keto or paleo crew. A clean diet that concerns itself with more than calorie content is better for any common sense diet correction for anybody trying to improve them self.

>>42752174
>These are all outpatient trials. Not isocaloric, isonitrogenous, or fiber-matched. They are not even designed/powered to test your claims.
One is a direct expirement, the other is a meta-analysis, what more do you want out of a 4chan argument?

>What do you make of https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0012817/
Dietary GI has little to no effect on cholesterol. Cholestorl levels do not equate to weight loss, so I don't see why you're bringing this up.

>http://aaccipublications.aaccnet.org/doi/pdf/10.1094/CFW-57-4-0177
>Post relevant citations and arguments here. Not a gish gallop.
Not only does that not contradict the authors' points about GI, it contained multiple paid advertisements in its original publication. Some PHDs will say anything for a few crisp Washingtons.

>>42752226
>by following calories in vs calories out, people here frequently post to count calories, cut out processed crap, stop drinking sodas and hit your macros I'm guessing you're one of the people that just stopped at the calorie counting part and then blame others for your lack of common sense
So in the same sentence you claim that CICO works, claim that CICO doesn't work, and say that people who believe in CICO are idiots. Fabulous.

>>42751110
Haha nice save fatty

>>42752289
>So in the same sentence you claim that CICO works,
correct, but again I'll add it's not 100% accurate
>claim that CICO doesn't work,
I never said that
>and say that people who believe in CICO are idiots. Fabulous.
never said that, but if you eat 2500 kcal of sugar a day then you are, yes
like I said
>>42752226
>people here frequently post to count calories, cut out processed crap, stop drinking sodas and hit your macros
it comes down to CICO, but that doesn't mean to eat 100% simple carbs, it requires some basic common sense

you can't lose weight solely on macro percentages if your calories is higher than what you need like what is being implied in this thread, CICO is what it comes down to

>>42748511

>caloriecucks

You pulled me out of a sad mood and now i'm dying laughing.

Thanks mang.

>>42752272
>One is a direct expirement, the other is a meta-analysis,
You linked to two extraneous meta-analyses on outpatient trials. But at least now we know you didn't read or understand them.

>what more do you want out of a 4chan argument?
Right now I'm getting a good laugh out of your distractions and inability to debate properly.

>Dietary GI has little to no effect on cholesterol. Cholestorl levels do not equate to weight loss, so I don't see why you're bringing this up.
They discuss low GI diets increasing satiety and leading to a spontaneous reduction in caloric intake as an explanation for the favorable changes in biomarkers mentioned in your other reviews.

>Not only does that not contradict the authors' points about GI
I'll ask again: post the ones relevant to your claim.

>it contained multiple paid advertisements in its original publication. Some PHDs will say anything for a few crisp Washingtons.
De facto every major mainstream academic journal, printed or online, contains advertisements. They almost exclusively go to the publisher, not the article author(s). Just how fucking delusional and uneducated are you?

File: 1495203770025.png (257KB, 303x353px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 303x353px

what does faty gains from shiting on CICO ?
Because your adipose brain is not smart enough to follow a protocol consisting as simple as making sure that one number is lower than another lumber doesn't mean it's flawed , sorry you had to resort to magic healing crystal therapy to not get your feet amputated but unless you got dat dere pre-beetus eating high gi carbs will not fuck you up .

>>42749817
HAHAHAAHA stay fat

>>42752662
Only people who advocate against CICO are fat anon , people who understand how it work use it to their advantage to lose weight / get leaner / bulk , whereas fat fuck denying cico have to resort to health destroying meme-diet like prolonged fasting & low carbs .

File: 1499810932664.jpg (301KB, 921x741px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 921x741px

>>42748352
All your video says is that calorie counting is not always 100% precise, wich is true.
But that is mostly due to the way the caloric content of food is measured.
You could get more accurate, but that would require testing every pice of food leaving the factory to get more accuracy and make food verry expensive.
So we stick with a acceptable margin of error and low testing prices.

A larger error occurs when people don´t calculate in all the small things like soda or sauces in their diets...

>>42752464
Just felt like posting to say that the guy you were arguing with was a massive fucking moron, and I'm glad that there's at least some educated people here who are able to and willing to call out misinformation and flat out lies.


The amount of people who think they're fucking experts on a topic because they read an article and skimmed two abstracts without at all understanding what they meant is fucking insane. People shouldn't start spouting opinions on topics they aren't educated in, it does nothing but create confusion among beginners or other people who aren't sure, in any topic. At least have an education on how to read and interpret data, and some familiarity with journals and other articles if you want to use sources like that to back up a claim.


But yeah, rant aside, cheers for being willing to call out dumb people anon, people like you are a good influence on the board.

File: 180_150_165.png (1MB, 1172x636px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1172x636px

>>42748352
Counting calories worked for me, bulked too fast, made great strength gains at 1lbs a week till I hit 180 but looked like shit so I cut down to hungry skeleton at 150.

Then I decided to bulk leaner and only gain .5 per week. It's just a guideline or a map not a religion, adjust accordingly.

>>42748352
Yeah macros effect the rate of weight gain/loss (and quality), but you cant argue with the second law of thermodynamics. If your calories are in a deficit, physics will make you lose weight regardless if you want it or not.

>>42752683
>fasting and low carb
>health destroying

fucking lmao

>>42748352

>calories don't matter
>showcase a woman who counts calories and loses weight

This guy is trying way too hard to sound smart, what a load of shit.

>>42748352

Obviously the calory concept is dumbed down, most people wouldn't be able to grasp it any other way.
But this fucking video is like: "This guideline isn't correct down to the commas for everyone, so it is BS!"
Not even taking in the scientific errors and conclusions he's pulling out of his ass all the time...

>>42749817
>>42749847

You, I like you.

Wanted to start a scientific ramble on my own, whereas not that detailed as yours, but thanks for including all points I would have brought up, kudos to you.

Ignore the haters, they are just jelly of you education.

>>42750140
Fuck up constable killjoy

Even if god himself comes down to this wretched planet, gets on his knees and shows me the cosmic truth that CICO is a lie, I'd still keep following CICO because it has worked for me.

>>42748352
> partial information
> hypocritical rhetoric
> "THERMAL DYNATMICS!"
stay cucked

>>42750140
> "Thing!"
> "Well, here are the reasons thing is wrong."
> "OMG, what a fucking looser!"
neck yourself

File: 1503482891611.jpg (77KB, 960x639px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 960x639px

>>42751977

You will effectively stunt your fat loss if you go for an extreme calorie cut from the get-go; the body woud start cannibalizing muscle to a great degree. Calories in, calories out is a simplification, but it's largely true. However, there are certain things that can benefit/detract from weight loss, what you did is one of them.

If you're willing to get into the nilly willy of this topic, Lyle McDonald has some great information on his wesite, bodyrecomposition.com

File: 4b0.png (136KB, 622x626px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 622x626px

>>42748352
But if this is a myth how did I drop 50 lbs when all I did was begin regulating my caloric intake?

>inb4 genetics

>>42750403
the point of the autistic two-post dissection of the nonsense isnt to convince deluded retards that they are wrong.
the point is to provide a sound argument that will convince any neutral or unconvinced observer that the shit posted by OP is complete bullshit.

>>42751182
>post retarded shit
>get btfo
>haha jokes on you, i was only pretending to be retarded!

File: dudelmao.png (117KB, 500x1238px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 500x1238px

>>42751182
>>42754987

>>42754656
Lyle is actually very much pro big deficits in certain circumstances, like kickstarting a longer period of dieting

it definitely doesn't cuck your metabolism (metabolic adaptation to underfeeding is 100% normal and will happen on any deficit, and is easily reversed with a diet break) or cannibalize your muscle unless you aren't getting enough protein and are losing at a really excessive rate

https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/setting-the-deficit-small-moderate-or-large.html/

>>42749817
>Autistic ramblings about fat cell composition and trivial differences in food calorie content and absorption are irrelevant.

Run some basic math. 100 extra calories a day is an extra 10 pounds a year. And he talked about changes in fat composition of approximately a 5-10% sway. Between those two, someone could be quite a bit larger on their diet than expected.

>>42752343
>it comes down to CICO, but that doesn't mean to eat 100% simple carbs

Different anon, but why not? I would still lose fat this way as long as I was at an appropriate deficit would I not?

>>42756207
Did you somehow miss the sentence right after that? Uncertainty in the dynamics of TDEE decline, even just from fidgeting, etc., is already over 100 calories. So you're going to have much bigger problems if you only check your bodyweight and readjust food intake once per year.

File: IMG_5849.jpg (97KB, 627x473px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 627x473px

>>42748352
This pretentious cunt is so annoying.

Calorie counting does work, every time, if the person actually counts the calories instead of guesstimating.

I ate 2 whoopers a day and drank a 17 oz Coke, every day, for 2 months and I lost 20 pounds in those two months, because that isn't even 1600 calories and if you eat less than 1700 a day you'll lose weight if you're overweight.

Now I know what you're thinking
"*but were you working out*"
And here is where I rape your argument like a feminist at a refugee camp:
I have muscular dystrophy and was unable to work out or even walk when I started calorie counting. I literally lost weight by sitting on my ass, doing nothing, except eating less calories than I naturally burn. In total I've lost 115 pounds, and shit like this is why the world is fat.

Telling people losing weight isnt as simple as calorie counting is what puts off most people(even myself) from doing it. Sure, they're fat cause they eat to much, but you're in part to blame.

>>42756677
If we're sharing anecdotes, I lost 100lbs through a combination of low-carb and (after my first 40 lost) CICO. Now that I've done it for this long and hit a wall / felt a downshift in weight loss, I definitely think there is more to it than pure CICO.

I'm eating 1700 a day and move more than you do / did, yet I don't lose weight. Interesting, isn't it?

File: Lifting.jpg (82KB, 478x494px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 478x494px

>>42756748
I hit a wall because I reached 230 lbs(I was 345) and got lazy as fuck and didnt lose any for a few months.

Back on track now though, because
>get girl's number through friend
>she is single and cute
>share facebook with my pictures
>she says she has a boyfriend when its not listed and she told my friend a day ago she didn't
This isn't the first time this happened, last time it did I lost 55 lbs in 8 months.

>>42748352
Yes, the concept of using calories to calculate energy for human usage is very flawed and doesn't make any sense in theory, but it is a very easy to measure indicator for food intake and we have found it to be an very accurate indicator for weight gain and weight loss. In theory it makes not sense why calories should matter for people, because it's a unit of measurement for the heat certain matter gives off when it's burned, but in practice we have thousands upon thousands of studies and many different calculators to establish the supposed caloric needs of people according to their height, weight, composition and activity level and we have proven through scientifically peer reviewed studies, that weight gain or weight loss can be achieved through prolonged change in calorie intake.

What I'm saying is, yeah, calories are bullshit, but it fucking works, so who really gives a shit?

>>42750140
>>42751129
>MUH COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
you learned a new word kid?

>>42756932
>What I'm saying is, yeah, calories are bullshit, but it fucking works, so who really gives a shit?

I think the argument is to find a more efficient way to lose weight. Or at least something with a higher success rate. "It works" is not the same as "it can't be better". etc etc.

Or at least, that's my argument. People on both sides get a little stupid when it comes to CICO.

>>42748459
>for most people eating less calories than their body requires will make them lose weight
>most
We need to get rid of the plant people.

What you eat CAN affect how many calories you burn, however it's literally impossible for this effect to be enough to reverse CICO.

File: 1476386006164.jpg (190KB, 796x1024px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 796x1024px

>>42748352
>first law of thermodynamics is bullshit
well its just a definition , its a phrasing of the law of conservation of energy which is about symmetry of forces.

>dude all of science is based around this law an exception to which has not been found anywhere in the observable universe but believe me its not true because i have a vid on youtube
is this senpai for real ?

>>42756965
Advocating for research into better ways of measurement and disapproving of the best way of measurement readily available right now are 2 quite different things. In my opinion, it's a waste of money and resources since we already have a working measurement, but if you insist you're free to fund or advocate for funds for a study.

You have to remember unless we get the complete break down of all molecules inside the thing you are going to eat and even the smallest piece of bacteria that might have come into contact with it upon you touching it and alongside with that we need to know the complete composition of every cell in your body and the abundance of hormones, including the change in hormones during metabolization and other possible changes inside your body during this period, we will NEVER have an exact measurement of how much energy a piece of food is bringing into your organism. Everything else is a gross simplification and might as well just be calories.

>>42748352
This video is just pure autism. If you're counting kcalories and not losing weight you still have to eat less. Dense motherfucker