Incels?

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

8 minutes ago, Fl0nkerton said:

Yeah, lets get @LETSGOBROWNIES in here.

He does science and stuff. I believe him.

 

Lemme catch up.

 

[pwny]

The “there’s more to it” argument isn’t that calories in, calories out is wrong. It’s an explanation of pieces that go in that cause people to eat more calories or feel more satiated. People who eat unhealthy food eat more because they’re eating substances that don’t satiate you.

That’s why the phrase has seen a widespread chance to IIFYM. It’s the exact same concept, just explained further for people who take the phrase too literally.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

@Fl0nkerton

Jesus what a thread lol...

As far as the weight loss/being fat, both sides are right to some degree.  Hormones, genetics, macos (to some degree), etc all play a role in body composition and how easily a person gains or loses weight.  

That said, calories in/out is generally true.

Take a group of people, give them less than they need and they’ll lose bodyfat, 100% of the time.  Don’t believe me?

 

Unless they just have some god tier genetics, calorie restriction actually works.

[pwny]

21 hours ago, jrry32 said:

It's not just tied to height. Metabolic rates differ from person to person.

Metabolic rates differ, but for two people with no metabolic related health issues, the difference is largely negligible. If you were to take 96% of the entire population on the planet, and find the fastest and slowest metabolism out of those 7 billion people, the difference in metabolic rate between the two would be somewhere in the range of 288-312kcal, or approximately one serving of peanut butter on a serving of bread.

Sorry, but “slow metabolism” isn’t an excuse. Anyone who has a true *slow metabolism* that affects their ability to maintain weight should be seeing a doctor, because it’s a medical issue. But more than likely, they just need to quit using it as an excuse and eat less. 

[mistakey]

2 hours ago, Non-Issue said:

I'm certainly not suggesting that everyone who grew up playing video games and fapping to internet porn turned into an incel. I am saying the ones who only played video games and fapped to internet porn turned into incels. Most kids balance that video games and internet porn with a healthy dose of real life. They still get out and do things. They still chase girls in an effort to have a real relationship.

It's the ones who don't venture out that end up the incels. It's just too easy for kids to turtle up nowadays. And if they do, and they arent out there getting the interaction AFTER SCHOOL, like hanging out with friends, looking for girls to talk to, going to parties, then they aren't emotionally equipped to deal with normal human interaction. Which gets them a negative reaction from women. Which they can't handle because they didn't experience that type of rejection, how to deal with it, and how to learn from it, at 14 years old like the rest of us normal people.

That family member I am talking about got the suggestion to hit the gym from a number of women. And he didn't like that suggestion. Didn't listen to it. Won't do it. And this is women his age giving him suggestions as to how to fix his problem. These are the ones he is supposed to be listening to. The ones telling him why he is so lonely. And he is like, "Effort???"

It's like he expects the women of the world to change, not him. The women of the world should just suddenly find broke, overweight 27 year old men that still live at home and have absolutely no game attractive. The cognitive dissonance just astounds me. It's like, Dude! Do you not understand how any of this works??? 

See I think that’s fair but I *still* think it’s more than just only playing video games.  I think there’s a lot of good people that are on the internet and show compassion and **** to their online friends and turn out not being misogynistic radicals that murder/and or commit suicide while screaming racial/homophobic/transphobic obscenities at 12 year olds in order to radicalize them.  I think they are in the minority for sure tho in the 100%online social contact gamer community tho

[Non-Issue]

49 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

@Fl0nkerton

Jesus what a thread lol...

As far as the weight loss/being fat, both sides are right to some degree.  Hormones, genetics, macos (to some degree), etc all play a role in body composition and how easily a person gains or loses weight.  

That said, calories in/out is generally true.

Take a group of people, give them less than they need and they’ll lose bodyfat, 100% of the time.  Don’t believe me?

 

Unless they just have some god tier genetics, calorie restriction actually works.

I'm not arguing that CICO doesn't work. I am arguing it doesnt work for everyone. That it is a gross oversimplification to say, "People who are fat want to be fat because being skinny is simply a matter of CICO."

But sure, I suppose you could always go on the Auschwitz diet. You will definitely lose fat. And muscle. And the ability to fight off infection. And your ability to control bodily functions. But I heard Marasmus is the new black. Very vogue. 

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

15 minutes ago, Non-Issue said:

I'm not arguing that CICO doesn't work. I am arguing it doesnt work for everyone. That it is a gross oversimplification to say, "People who are fat want to be fat because being skinny is simply a matter of CICO."

But sure, I suppose you could always go on the Auschwitz diet. You will definitely lose fat. And muscle. And the ability to fight off infection. And your ability to control bodily functions. But I heard Marasmus is the new black. Very vogue. 

Obviously I was using an exteme example, but it definitely works for everybody. Reduce calories and fat will get burned, and yes, some muscle too.

When people say “it doesn’t work for me” odds are they aren’t weighing food and getting an accurate number for caloric intake or they’re overestimating their caloric needs. Essentially, they’re doing it wrong.

Many fat people are lazy and it’s easier to blame their blubber on genetics, their thyroid, whatever than simply admitting they don’t have the discipline to do what’s necessary to lose the weight.

[Heimdallr]

CICO is an indisputable law, even that Heathline article doesn't argue that. All they are trying to say in that article is that different foods have different hormone/insulin impacts, which makes maintaining calorie levels either easier/harder. Such a poorly written, contradictory article. 

The only real point they make that is meaningful is that weight/calories is not the same thing as overall health.

 

[nagahide13]

Testosterone is a hell of a drug.

What's really crazy about many incels is that their entire narrative is often internalized. Examples like Elliot Rodger wouldn't even interact with other people often... They completely separate themselves socially, then project imagined rejection.

[Non-Issue]

On 2/18/2019 at 5:42 PM, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Obviously I was using an exteme example, but it definitely works for everybody. Reduce calories and fat will get burned, and yes, some muscle too.

When people say “it doesn’t work for me” odds are they aren’t weighing food and getting an accurate number for caloric intake or they’re overestimating their caloric needs. Essentially, they’re doing it wrong.

Many fat people are lazy and it’s easier to blame their blubber on genetics, their thyroid, whatever than simply admitting they don’t have the discipline to do what’s necessary to lose the weight.

I have been discussing simple CICO this entire time. I am not discussing a program where you go about making sure you are eating the right foods, taking in the correct number of calories, and burning the correct number of calories. I am talking about the notion that "if you simply take in less than you put out, you will eventually be skinny." And outside of your extreme example, that simply isnt true.

What is a simple CICO diet? It's what people have done for the last 100 years to lose weight. They cut down on how much they are eating. Boom... CICO. And some people see success. Others dont. Why? Because it isnt that simple. As you are pointing out, it requires a lot more than saying, "Hey, if I just cut what I am eating by half, I will lose weight."

Once you start talking about weighing food, or body calculators, macronutrient calculators, TDEEs, etc etc, you aren't talking about what I am talking about. Because the discussion is about "being fat is about being lazy and undisciplined because all you need to do is take in less than you put out." When you start talking about LBMs and BMRs you arent talking about laziness. You are talking about ignorance. A lot of fat people simply dont know about any of this. They think "CICO is all it takes. Take in less than you put out and VOILA! Success!!!" And when it doesn't happen...

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

8 minutes ago, Non-Issue said:

I have been discussing simple CICO this entire time. I am not discussing a program where you go about making sure you are eating the right foods, taking in the correct number of calories, and burning the correct number of calories.

Reread this again, slowly, say it out loud. That’s literally the definition of CICO.

8 minutes ago, Non-Issue said:

I am talking about the notion that "if you simply take in less than you put out, you will eventually be skinny." And outside of your extreme example, that simply isnt true.

But it is, you’re just refusing to accept it.  It’s cool though, you’re free to die alone on this silly hill.

Correctly managing caloric intake is undefeated. 

8 minutes ago, Non-Issue said:

What is a simple CICO diet? It's what people have done for the last 100 years to lose weight. They cut down on how much they are eating. Boom... CICO. And some people see success. Others dont. Why? Because it isnt that simple. As you are pointing out, it requires a lot more than saying, "Hey, if I just cut what I am eating by half, I will lose weight."

Just because someone cuts their intake by half doesn’t mean it’s enough.  Some landwhale who doesn’t move off the couch may not need to reduce from 6500 calories a day to 3250, they may need to get down to 2300-2400.  It’s not about guesstimating some number you think should work and then throwing your hands in the air and thinking “it’s obviously genetics, I can’t fix this” when it doesn’t.  

8 minutes ago, Non-Issue said:

Once you start talking about weighing food, or body calculators, macronutrient calculators, TDEEs, etc etc, you aren't talking about what I am talking about.

What exactly you talking about then?  Because it’s sure as hell is not CICO.  You’re talking about someone eating what they think is subjectively less based on nothing in particular, certainly no facts or accurate numbers.

8 minutes ago, Non-Issue said:

Because the discussion is about "being fat is about being lazy and undisciplined because all you need to do is take in less than you put out." When you start talking about LBMs and BMRs you arent talking about laziness.

If you’re too lazy to input some numbers into an online calculator and track macros accurately we most definitely are talking about laziness.

8 minutes ago, Non-Issue said:

You are talking about ignorance. A lot of fat people simply dont know about any of this.

If only there was a place where all of this information was at the tips of your fingers....

8 minutes ago, Non-Issue said:

They think "CICO is all it takes. Take in less than you put out and VOILA! Success!!!" And when it doesn't happen...

It does tho...

Just because fatties can’t figure out how much to eat to lose weight doesn’t mean the principles don’t apply.

Cant figure out TDEE, BMR, etc?  Fine.  Eat less until you start losing weight, it’ll happen eventually.

Just because some goobers are too dense to figure out they can’t guesstimate their serving sizes accurately doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.  The reason all of those measurables even exist is to calculate caloric needs ffs. 

I see no need to go round and round about this, I’ve seen it work literally every time when applied correctly.  If you want to continue to believe that CICO doesn’t work universally, feel free, people believe all kinds of asinine stuff and I’m not here to change people’s minds.

Cheers.

[Non-Issue]

2 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Reread this again, slowly, say it out loud. That’s literally the definition of CICO.

But it is, you’re just refusing to accept it.  It’s cool though, you’re free to die alone on this silly hill.

Correctly managing caloric intake is undefeated. 

Just because someone cuts their intake by half doesn’t mean it’s enough.  Some landwhale who doesn’t move off the couch may not need to reduce from 6500 calories a day to 3250, they may need to get down to 2300-2400.  It’s not about guesstimating some number you think should work and then throwing your hands in the air and thinking “it’s obviously genetics, I can’t fix this” when it doesn’t.  

What exactly you talking about then?  Because it’s sure as hell is not CICO.  You’re talking about someone eating what they think is subjectively less based on nothing in particular, certainly no facts or accurate numbers.

If you’re too lazy to input some numbers into an online calculator and track macros accurately we most definitely are talking about laziness.

If only there was a place where all of this information was at the tips of your fingers....

It does tho...

Just because fatties can’t figure out how much to eat to lose weight doesn’t mean the principles don’t apply.

Cant figure out TDEE, BMR, etc?  Fine.  Eat less until you start losing weight, it’ll happen eventually.

Just because some goobers are too dense to figure out they can’t guesstimate their serving sizes accurately doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.  The reason all of those measurables even exist is to calculate caloric needs ffs. 

I see no need to go round and round about this, I’ve seen it work literally every time when applied correctly.  If you want to continue to believe that CICO doesn’t work universally, feel free, people believe all kinds of asinine stuff and I’m not here to change people’s minds.

Cheers.

What is THE definition of CICO? Since it clearly has one meaning and one application, what is it?

[Non-Issue]

 

2 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Reread this again, slowly, say it out loud. That’s literally the definition of CICO.

Then CICO isnt simply "less in, more out." Correct? It is "less in, more out, right foods, correct number of calories, weighing portions, calculating TDEE, etc etc etc."

 

3 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

But it is, you’re just refusing to accept it.  It’s cool though, you’re free to die alone on this silly hill.

Correctly managing caloric intake is undefeated. 

The fact that you have to qualify your claim with the bolded is kinda making my point. But thanks for keeping me company on this hill.
 

3 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Just because someone cuts their intake by half doesn’t mean it’s enough.  Some landwhale who doesn’t move off the couch may not need to reduce from 6500 calories a day to 3250, they may need to get down to 2300-2400.  It’s not about guesstimating some number you think should work and then throwing your hands in the air and thinking “it’s obviously genetics, I can’t fix this” when it doesn’t.

Oh... you dont say? You mean... "less in, more out" isnt enough??? That wont work for everyone??? You need more than that??? If only someone out there supported your stance. If only there was at least one other guy in the world "less in, more out" isnt going to work for everyone.

And I havent mentioned genetics once. I am not making excuses for anyone. I am not defending anyone. I am simply pointing out the ridiculously reductive argument that "less in, more out" is the cure for obesity. When, as you have readily agreed, a lot more goes into it than that.

I have a feeling you are projecting other arguments you have had into this one. Let go of those other arguments and hear what I am saying. It isnt complicated unless you make it complicated.

3 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

What exactly you talking about then?  Because it’s sure as hell is not CICO.  You’re talking about someone eating what they think is subjectively less based on nothing in particular, certainly no facts or accurate numbers.

I have already told you what I am talking about. A simple CICO diet. Emphasis on simple. As in "less in, more out." Without having a PT guide you. Or a half semester of night classes to learn the science of it all. Or running around with a food scale, an iPhone app, and a fitbit to track the calories you burned.

SIMPLE! I have said that MULTIPLE times before you even entered the conversation. I think I even said it AFTER you entered the conversation. So what, exactly, is holding you back from understanding what I am saying? English seems to be your first language. I have done everything short of a powerpoint presentation with eye popping colors and big letters to make my point. But you still seem to be struggling.

 

3 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

If you’re too lazy to input some numbers into an online calculator and track macros accurately we most definitely are talking about laziness.

And if they have never heard of LBMs and BMRs? Too lazy to know things?

 

3 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

If only there was a place where all of this information was at the tips of your fingers....

You have to know what you are looking for in order to find it. This magical place we call the internet isnt a personal manager. It isnt going to look at you and say, "Hey, youre kinda fat. Ever hear of BMR and LBM and TDEE?"

Ignorance and laziness are not interchangeable. 

 

3 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

It does tho...

Just because fatties can’t figure out how much to eat to lose weight doesn’t mean the principles don’t apply.

You're overcompensating. Dial it back.

And "the principles" are what I am talking about. "Less in, more out." When you start talking about BMRs, LBMs, when you start using scales, and macronutrient calculators, you have gone beyond the principles. 

 

3 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

I see no need to go round and round about this, I’ve seen it work literally every time when applied correctly.  If you want to continue to believe that CICO doesn’t work universally, feel free, people believe all kinds of asinine stuff and I’m not here to change people’s minds.

Oh, well I had no idea it worked "literally every time" you have seen it applied "correctly." I had no idea it was simply a matter of reducing the argument to the people you have seen do it correctly. Were your Auschwitz buddies applying it correctly? Because that was just as super sound an argument. 

 

3 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Cheers.

Skal right back at ya, friend!

[pwny]

If taking in fewer calories than you burn doesn’t cause someone to lose weight, how exactly are they burning more calories? Where are these calories coming from that they’re burning?

[pwny]

3 minutes ago, Non-Issue said:

Oh... you dont say? You mean... "less in, more out" isnt enough??? That wont work for everyone??? You need more than that??? If only someone out there supported your stance. If only there was at least one other guy in the world "less in, more out" isnt going to work for everyone.

That isn’t what he said there at all, by the way. If you’re eating 6500 calories and burning 2200, you’re not going to lose weight cutting down to only taking in 3000. You’re still taking in more calories than you’re expending.