There are people who unironically believe weight loss is only CICO and nothing else

Yes, because it is. My weight has been everything from 73 kg to 109 kg and back.

Those "other factors" are still cico tho.

Attached: c7e14f56.png (472x565, 9.05K)

cope

cope

cope

The problem with these threads is CICO is a law.

However what they don't tell you is you have to keep readjusting your macros also.
If you're new to counting calories understand plainly what i'm saying.
CICO is factual, you eat less calories, you lose more weight.

However you'll need to readdress your diet every few months. Otherwise you'll plateau or crash.

nope, re-read what I said. Fructose does more to your body than just supplying you with 4 calories per gram

Because it's literally proven that the type of food impacts weight gain even if the amount of calories are similar to your TDEE.

If you eat 1,000 calorie deficit, but it all consists of Boogie's diet of donuts and fries, you're going to lose weight slower than if you ate 1,000 calorie deficit of fresh meat and veggies

>cock in cock out

nice bro science

Because obviously you're putting in more of those calories than your putting out, relative to each other

Right but nobody here is advocating you eat donuts and fries and we're not disagreeing that it might affect your metabolism in some way. If it does affect your metabolism, then it would be the equivalent of lowering your TDEE, keeping CICO in effect.

You semantics arguing fuckwit.

You can try all sorts of diets and pancreatic HIIT jerking off but ultimately it all boils down to expending more than your intake. If megadosing quinoa and laxatives is what it takes to achieve a negative energy balance so be it. But it was the calories not the quinoa that did it

yes, if your liver metabolizes and has to store excessive calories as fat then that's true. But the liver doesn't metabolize 100% of the calories it takes in. Some nutrients like fructose and alcohol have an excess amount of calories stored as visceral fat compared to the 3 macros.

it's a hyperbole, but it indicates you need to take in food that doesn't mess up your insulin resistance and that the liver can metabolize without much trouble. It won't lower your TDEE, but it would spike insulin levels, which is scientifically proven to increase the storage of glycogen as fat. Denying this is denying science.

Otherwise you are just starving yourself without optimal weight loss.
Most CICO fags misunderstand and thing that my OP says "CICO IS FAKE AND DOESN'T MATTER LOL XD", that's not what I am saying. But it's completely misleading to say it's only CICO that matters.

Thermodynamically it doesn't do more than supply calories. Yes, with fructose it very easily goes into fat stores while giving a kind of starvation signal. Basically the only nutrient that depletes cellular energy before you get anything out of it, and when you do it's a lot of fat.
Nutrients matter to your health and effect your energy expenditure. But even if your diet is 20% fructose, you're not gaining weight if calories is less than calories out. You'll fell miserable and hungry at that much fructose intake, but it doesn't break basic physics.

Can't remember if alcohol gets stored as fat because it fucks with the liver or if, while metabolizing it, it prevents other shit from being processed. I know my pisstank cousin drinks about 10 beer every odd day and has 'beer gut', hard visceral fat.

>But even if your diet is 20% fructose, you're not gaining weight if calories is less than calories out.
watch The Sugar Film and unless you can prove me with an experiment of your own that you didn't gain weight, then this anecdotal evidence alone proves more than your argument

so can you build muscles without calorie surplus or cant you?

yes you can, but that depends on your macros, activity level, getting rem sleep and avoiding stress

Sure I'll have a look. But if they're at any point keeping the guy in a closed system and accurately measuring his energy expenditure and intake, they are not going to break physics and show cico wrong. Otherwise someone's in for a nobel price.

don't forget micros, training style, training experience, and muscle fiber dominance.
a whole foods based, type 2 dominant athlete training explosively with a bunch of quality volume will gain muscle even in a moderate deficit assuming they're decently far away from their maximum muscular potential. however, someone with a type 1 dominance and a long history of strength training that eats poptarts and ice cream will likely struggle to gain muscle even in a moderate surplus.
if you're a novice, there's no reason you can't build muscle consistently while dieting to 12-15% bodyfat if you get sufficient protein, eat your veggies, get ~8 hours of sleep a night, and avoid a stressful lifestyle

calories out = f(Macros in, Exercise, Hormone Status, Sleep etc.)

YES 100% calories in vs calories out is correct

The problem is, how can you measure calories out? Is it even possible to accurately guess? And this only deals with 'weight'. How useful is CICO when we're dealing with body composition?

Everyone who isn't retarded accepts cico, the problem is it isn't actually that useful to most people.

It's both

Weight loss is more than CICO, because your hormones regulate how much fat is burned and how much muscle is built.
CICO is still kinda useful though, because otherwise people start making excuses about muh conditions

You are one of those endless millennial cucks that think a piece of paper proves their argument and gives them the right to call their statements "sCiEnTiFiC"

>cope
nope

Attached: 1587102306283.png (235x214, 8.17K)

>the thing is
>laws

Attached: 1587102047403.png (596x1008, 91.57K)

>Everyone who isn't retarded accepts cico
>The problem is it's useless
>You're still a retard

Attached: 1558767247961.jpg (474x296, 22.03K)

Attached: EA42mJJXYAEzxWF_(2).jpg (1172x659, 56.48K)

enjoy being poor and in debt forever

when i was intermittent fasting, i was consuming 1200 calories a day in two meals and I have a physical job and on top of that worked out, so I was getting about 40 hours a week of moderate exercise combined with 5-7 hours of intense exercise

I was stuck at my weight and couldn't lose weight.

I have since changed my diet to 1800 calories, I've lost my job due to covid, still workout, and in the past 2 months I've lost about 20 lbs.

There is a point where caloric restriction works against you, and it's different for every person. Your body adapts to your eating habits, it will seek to keep fat and consume muscle.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's not as simple as restricting calories, sure some people can do it and lose 5-10 lbs, but people who need to lose much more than that just won't effectively lose weight doing it.