CICO dipshits

[Anonymous No.18595202]

Why are calorie counting people the most dogmatic people that are alive on this planet ? I swear you motherfuckers are worse that feminists

[Anonymous No.18595208]

>>18595202
What do you expect from people that lack the discipline to do a proper diet like Keto?

[Anonymous No.18595216]

Now post your bmi

[Anonymous No.18595229]

>>18595202
I think you're thinking of ketolards.

I don't have to count calories because I am not a giant slob piece of shit. Here's an idea, just eat healthy food instead of slopshit all the time?

[Anonymous No.18595318]

Calories are a retarded measure of food energy anyway. Your tummy is not a furnace.

[Anonymous No.18595322]

>>18595202
Because they're right, you're wrong, and you don't like it. Just like the gaggle of fat bitches who hated scales because they were fat.

[Anonymous No.18595386]

>>18595318
Food calorie labels take that into account.

[Anonymous No.18595412]

>>18595208
I can't let this first perfect bait post go unacknowledged.

[Anonymous No.18595414]

>>18595386
no they don't

[Anonymous No.18595439]

>>18595202
You can't make fat or energy out of thin air.
There's a lot more details, but if you want to lose weight, eat less and/or exercise more is the general rule.

[Anonymous No.18595441]

>However, even though food scientists have since modernized Atwater's calculation, some experts say that the Atwater system is outdated and inaccurate. A 2012 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (opens in new tab) found that the energy content of certain foods, such as nuts, cannot be accurately calculated by the Atwater system. Plus, the FDA allows for a 20 percent margin of error for nutrients listed on a food label, including calories, meaning that these calorie counts aren't incredibly accurate.

>But even if the calorie label had no margin of error, "[this method] does not take into account the digestive process, but assumes complete conversion of nutrients to energy," Macdonald said. "That doesn't happen in humans, although our bodies are pretty efficient at recovering energy from food."

It's a useless number that doesn't even have to be close to the actual value, and which cannot be directly observed. It's nothing more than arithmetical woo woo.

[Anonymous No.18595445]

>>18595202
What you eat is obviously important, but if you overeat natural, unprocessed meat and vegetables without expending the energy to burn off the calories then you're going to get fat.

[Anonymous No.18595451]

>>18595441
It may not work for processed goyslop, but it does for meat and vegetables and butter/oils.

[Anonymous No.18595454]

People who understand calories in calories out are usually smart enough to have a balanced diet and exercise regularly.

[Anonymous No.18595457]

>>18595454
Some of us were very poorly raised and have trauma and are trying really hard not to indulge in vices such as drugs and alcohol and overeating and know exactly what we need to do to be healthy but it just doesn't fucking work FUCK

[Anonymous No.18595463]

>>18595451
The entire idea of a calorie is a retarded invention made to make the FDA appear like it actually knows what its doing (spoilers, they don't). It's only slightly less ridiculous than the food pyramid.

[Anonymous No.18595464]

>>18595386
they just add the grams of macronutrients

[Anonymous No.18595468]

>>18595439
No shit, but CICO is and always will be retarded and completely pointless reductionism. It says nothing at all. It's like telling a depressed person to just stop being sad.

[Anonymous No.18595472]

>>18595463
then just replace "calories" with "grams of fat, protein, and carbohydrates"

[Anonymous No.18595473]

>>18595441
So what's a better number or system?

[Anonymous No.18595482]

>>18595441
>assumes complete conversion of nutrients to energy
Since poop is flammable (once dried), I think we all know "calories out" includes pooping.

>It's a useless number
Just like EPA mileage estimates, it's fine for comparing different products.
We know a pound of celery isn't as fattening as a pound of peanut butter, even if we don't have precise figures for either.

[Anonymous No.18595491]

>>18595473
Nothing. You can't quantify micronutrients easily on a macro level, that's going to stay nearly impossible. Stop trusting CICO, because the system is based on nonsense. Like nearly all diets, CICO works just because the person doing it is paying attention to their food intake, and not eating stuff they don't need to eat. It's not any more scientfic than South Beach or Keto, or what have you. But CICO isn't more valid just because there are (fake) numbers involved.

[Anonymous No.18595493]

>>18595457
>know exactly what we need to do to be healthy but it just doesn't fucking work FUCK
Nope.

[Anonymous No.18595499]

>>18595491
So because the system isn't perfect we should trust absolutely nothing and just do whatever.

Real smart.

[Anonymous No.18595507]

>>18595468
>completely pointless reductionism.
I think you mis-spelled "overall generalization".

>It says nothing at all.
It says:
>>18595439
>if you want to lose weight, eat less and/or exercise more

>It's like telling a depressed person to just stop being sad.
No, it's like telling a fat person to stop eating so much.

[Anonymous No.18595521]

>>18595499
No? You should eat healthy food that's not terrible for you with nutrients in it. Virtually no nutritionism aside from dieting for weight loss or weight gain relies on calorie counting. CICO is very much a niche diet system based on loose and unscientific estimates, that for some reason is seen as being rigidly scientific. Treat it like any other diet: useful as a discipline on what you eat, rather than the "right" way to eat.

[Anonymous No.18595533]

>>18595521
And so if I want to lose weight what's the best method I should use to track what I am eating since calories are worthless?

[Anonymous No.18595535]

>>18595202

[Anonymous No.18595551]

>>18595386
No they do not you idiot. Why would you lie about something so trivially debunked?

[Anonymous No.18595559]

>>18595202
sounds like something a fat person would say

[Anonymous No.18595563]

>>18595533
I think that's a bigger question than is suggested by criticizing a system of governmental nutrition. If you desperately need to apply a number to every meal, then the number should be a loose count of macronutrients. Really I would just let go of the idea that every crumb can and should be calculated, it's not any more real than a "serving size".

[Anonymous No.18595566]

>>18595318
>Your tummy is not a furnace.
actually it is. metabolism is just really slow combustion. learn2thermodynamics

[Anonymous No.18595573]

>>18595202
Autism mainly. They obsess over numbers and micromanaging because they have no other way of knowing how to eat properly. They lack sufficient taste buds and have no other method of telling which foods are good or bad for them.

[Anonymous No.18595579]

>>18595202
CICO is measurement that expresses Newtonian laws.
Yes, poison will fuck up your calories out.
It's still measurement just like your weight and height is.
https://tdeecalculator.net
>teflon forever chemicals
>microplastics
>sneed/vegetable motor oils with mercury and lead
>soy
>aluminum neurotoxins
>TVP vegan dogfood
>glyphosate and atrazine
>fluoride, chlorine dioxide, bromate
>TBHQ
>bugs

[Anonymous No.18595584]

>>18595579
>seed oil is le bad
so tired of this meme lol

[Anonymous No.18595585]

>>18595563
Got it, so you have no answer and no better method so just eat whatever and hope for the best.

[Anonymous No.18595588]

>>18595584
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfk2IXlZdbI

[Anonymous No.18595590]

>>18595588
wait until you see what meat looks like before it's processed

[Anonymous No.18595612]

>>18595521
>no nutritionism aside from dieting for weight loss or weight gain relies on calorie counting.
Yes, I'm pretty sure that's what it's for.
>CICO is very much a niche diet system
No, it's a generalization that applies to all diet systems. Dr. Atkins doesn't want you eating carbs because you aren't getting much nutritional value beyond the calories. Broccoli has a lot more micronutrients per calorie than bread.

[Anonymous No.18595615]

>>18595507
>No, it's like telling a fat person to stop eating so much.
This is entirely it. Just stop eating. People have been intentionally fasting since recorded history. Literal kings fasted.
If you can go a day without eating, you can stick to eating your TDEE. If you can't eat your TDEE, go back to fasting. Ghrelin receptors downregulate.

[Anonymous No.18595621]

>>18595533
>I want to lose weight what's the best method I should use to track what I am eating
Why would you need to track anything besides your weight? "Eat less, exercise more" doesn't require any actual math.

[Anonymous No.18595622]

>>18595590
looks something like this

[Anonymous No.18595630]

>>18595202
Because "simple duh" appeals to midwits who get scared and angry from thinking about anything remotely complex

Also there's a lot of money from soda companies and fastfood companies that are trying to undermine public health measures by promoting the idea that you are stupid if you don't understand the simple fact that you don't need to worry about macronutrients or vitamins or any of that shit, it's "simple" and for evidence here's a guy we paid to pretend to eat nothing but twinkies for six months (actually he ate twinkies and a lot of steamed vegetables and whole milk and lean meats but let's just pretend he only ate twinkies and if you question the agenda you're anti-science"

[Anonymous No.18595643]

>>18595566
No, no it's not. It's a chemical process. You're a woman aren't you?

[Anonymous No.18595645]

>>18595643
damn you're a dumb nigga lol

[Anonymous No.18595653]

>>18595621
So just eat less anything? I thought you said nutrition mattered.

[Anonymous No.18595655]

>>18595643
>It's a chemical process
wait until you find out what combustion is

[Anonymous No.18595656]

>>18595622
is this ukraine or afgahnistan or how desperate do you hve to be to put up with that smell in your own home

[Anonymous No.18595657]

>>18595630
Don't know who that guy is, but you have to admit that if you _did_ eat nothing but a few Twinkies a day, you'd definitely lose weight right up until you died of malnutrition.

[Anonymous No.18595666]

>>18595621
how do i know i'm eating less if there's no measurement to the amount of food i'm eating? people don't eat the same thing every day and an ounce of chicken is pretty different from an ounce of steak or ground beef. if only there were some rough approximation to give me an idea of how much i'm eating every day...

[Anonymous No.18595671]

>>18595666
BUT THE CALORIES AREN'T 100% COMPLETELY SUPER ACCURATE AND SO THAT MEANS IT'S WORTHLESS AND YOU CAN'T EVEN USE THEM AS JUST A GENERAL GUIDELINE!!!

[Anonymous No.18595675]

>>18595202
just don't talk to people about things that piss you off?
>they will bring it up without me asking!
then don't talk to them

[Anonymous No.18595679]

>>18595656
>doesn't enjoy warm chicken ass
ngmi

[Anonymous No.18595680]

>>18595202
>calories in calories out dummy just eat less than you move
>btw my basal metabolic rate is exactly 2,000 calories a day, i used an online calculator!

[Anonymous No.18595688]

>>18595653
>So just eat less anything?
Eat less in general. Not sure why this would be confusing.

>I thought you said nutrition mattered.
I think you're thinking of a different Anon, but yeah nutrition matters. So don't eat less by eating nothing but pure sugar.
Just eat a normal mix of food, but smaller portion sizes. Also cut out the "empty calorie" stuff like bread, soda and beer. You'll be fine.
When you're not dieting, do you track all the nutrition info for your meals?

[Anonymous No.18595690]

>>18595688
What's a "normal mix of food"? What's an "empty calorie"?

[Anonymous No.18595695]

>>18595645
>>18595655
>can't refute
Link me to some peer reviewed papers claiming that digestion is a type of combustion. You can't.

[Anonymous No.18595699]

>>18595666
>how do i know i'm eating less if there's no measurement to the amount of food i'm eating?
OK, you know how much you're eating now, right? Not the calorie count, but portion sizes, how full you feel, how many meals a day, right?
Just do that, but not as much food.
Not sure why this would be difficult.

[Anonymous No.18595707]

>>18595202
that's like asking why people are "dogmatic" that 2+2=4

[Anonymous No.18595708]

>>18595690
>What's a "normal mix of food"? What's an "empty calorie"?
OK, so you're a troll, got it.

[Anonymous No.18595720]

>>18595695
nobody thinks you know how to read a peer reviewed paper

[Anonymous No.18595722]

>>18595699
>OK, you know how much you're eating now, right?
no, i don't

[Anonymous No.18595730]

Saying "eat less" completely ignores appetite.
high volume low calorie diets tend to be more successful than you know, always being hungry.

[Anonymous No.18595746]

>>18595202
Picrel is correct though in terms of pure weight loss. Nutritional value is a different conversation.

[Anonymous No.18595757]

>>18595708
>Calories don't work!
>Ok, can you elaborate?
>NO THEY JUST DON'T

[Anonymous No.18595764]

>>18595720
>can't support claims
big surprise

[Anonymous No.18595768]

>>18595551
They're based on the average energy people got out of various diets. You can argue the numbers are inaccurate, but they absolutely try to take it into account.

[Anonymous No.18595770]

>>18595695
you already lost

[Anonymous No.18595773]

>>18595202
It more or less is unless you eat wood or something like that.

[Anonymous No.18595774]

>>18595764
not me

[Anonymous No.18595783]

>>18595441
>Atwater method
>based on measurements of respiration and the excreta after digestion
>doesn't take into account the digestive process

[Anonymous No.18595786]

>>18595491
>You can't quantify micronutrients easily on a macro level
This is like bitching that your speedometer doesn't give you information about the wear on your pistons.

[Anonymous No.18595788]

Fiber is more important than calories in, calories out.
You can replace all processed grain with whole grain and while this is technically more calories, you get more nutrients and fiber.
You can add calories worth of vegetables to a meal and it'll be healthier due to nutrients and fiber.

[Anonymous No.18595810]

>>18595788
>Fiber is more important than calories in, calories out.
CICO is mostly important if you're trying to lose weight. But you're right, even if you're dieting, there's no point in cutting fiber out of your diet, and veggies are a good way to "spend" your limited calories.

[Anonymous No.18595817]

So you're saying if I lock you in a jail cell and only give you 500 calories of corn syrup a day for a month you'll somehow not lose weight?

[Anonymous No.18595820]

>>18595770
eat some coal if you believe your tummy is a furnace

[Anonymous No.18595825]

>>18595202
You do realize you can do Keto or “Ancestral” AND count calories/macros right?

[Anonymous No.18595843]

What's the point this idiot is trying to make? Losing weight is CICO in 99% of circumstances and individual basal metabolic rates barely differ by 100 kCal/day (same sex/height/weight).
No one says that what you eat doesn't matter in terms of micronutrients and overall health, but those are irrelevant to losing weight and you can't prove otherwise.

[Anonymous No.18595849]

>>18595820
It's a good thing coal and other non-digestible aspects of our food are ignored in the calorie totals.
4-4-9 is a good baseline for a "population" of peoples. Just like bmi is a good measure of weight for a "population".
There will always be exceptions but calories are a good indicator for the vast majority of people.

[Anonymous No.18595853]

>>18595843
>irrelevant
Since the arguing faggot is clearly a Less Wrong type, you should say "less important" to weight loss and not "irrelevant".

[Anonymous No.18595861]

>>18595535
>.ppt
>ClipArt
>comic sans
sovl

[Anonymous No.18595868]

The conversation around CICO is insane. It's like if you told someone that to save money they should spend more than they earn, and they start ranting like oh so rimming tramps for change and buying nothing but gacha pulls is okay now?

[Anonymous No.18595872]

>>18595868
*shouldn't, fuck

[Anonymous No.18595875]

>>18595202
Yeah well when I ate 4000 calories a day I was morbidly obese and when I cut to 1900 a day I dropped 65lbs. So I'm going to have to go with CICO

[Anonymous No.18595879]

>>18595493
I know I'm eating too much, retard. By "doesn't work" I mean "I can't control myself"

[Anonymous No.18595882]

>>18595853
You'd probably be actively dying if you got to a point where micronutrients were interfering with weight loss.

[Anonymous No.18595895]

>>18595879
Have you considered controlling yourself?

[Anonymous No.18595900]

>>18595895
I'm trying. I'm better than I used to be.

[Anonymous No.18595901]

>>18595868
>rimming tramps for change and buying nothing but gacha pulls
Wow. That's disturbing: I know what "rimming tramps" is but I had to Google "gacha pulls".
Maybe I need to spend less time on the internet.

[Anonymous No.18595904]

>>18595879
Diets help with "being healthy" and/or "controlling yourself". The "controlling yourself" is what allows you to lose weight as per CICO.
Chaining you to a tree would also help with the "controlling yourself" part.

[Anonymous No.18595913]

>>18595900
Sounds like you're not in control of yourself.

[Anonymous No.18595915]

>>18595202
God you people who fucking lie to yourself and everyone around you gaslighting the public of basic health "Oh i actually barely eat anything but i still gain weight constantly" (actual weekly caloric intake 32000) "oh i actually eat a ton of food i just eat like a pig all the time and i just keep losing weight" (actual weekly caloric intake 9000)

[Anonymous No.18595920]

>>18595879
>By "doesn't work" I mean "I can't control myself"
If I'm the retard why did you write:
>>18595457
>know exactly what we need to do to be healthy but it just doesn't fucking work
So we agree "what you need to do to be healthy" DOES work, you just aren't doing it.
Maybe you should have written that down in your post instead of "it just doesn't fucking work".
But hey, apparent;y _I'm_ the retard, huh?

[Anonymous No.18595922]

>>18595208
>proper diet
>Keto
Pick one.

[Anonymous No.18595930]

>>18595915
Your metabolism determines how much of your daily calories your body burns. One person can eat 2000 calories and lose weight, another can eat 2000 calories and gain weight. You're the one gaslighting people by telling the person gaining weight that he just needs to eat fewer calories and all his problems will be solved. The reason he's gaining weight is not because of the calories, but because of his fucked up metabolism, which is caused by both genetics and poor lifestyle choices.

[Anonymous No.18595935]

>>18595930
Yes. If the 2nd person drops to 500 calories a day they sure as hell won't be gaining weight.

[Anonymous No.18595937]

>>18595463
Calorie was invented in 1819
FDA was founded in 1906

[Anonymous No.18595965]

>>18595930
Don't eat 2000 kC if your metabolism is fucked up. This isn't rocket appliances.

[Anonymous No.18595969]

>>18595930
If somebody is gaining weight and wants to stop, they need to eat less/exercise more since he can't change his metabolism (without drugs) or his genetics.
No matter how much you want to pretend "it's not calories durrr", he's eating too much.

[Anonymous No.18595972]

>>18595930
yes, fat fucks can eat more because their body is constantly struggling to keep up with fucking dying so they burn more calories in a day, skinny as fuck people are actively dying because their body is eating itself to make up calories so their body needs less calories, that has nothing to do with the fact that if you eat the right amount of calories you won't lose or gain weight. JUST FUCKING EAT LESS FOOD YOU FUCKING FAT FUCK JESUS FUCKING CHRIST. YOUR ANCESTORS WERE HUNGRY BASICALLY 24/7 YOU CAN GO HUNGRY FOR 1-2 HOURS BETWEEN FUCKING MEALS, PUT THE FUCKING CHIPS DOWN, PUT THEM DOWN

[Anonymous No.18595981]

>>18595935
>>18595965
Eating at such a huge caloric deficit is obviously unsustainable and doesn't address the root cause of their problem. Therefore telling them to eat fewer calories is retard tier advice. Instead, you should tell them to eat healthier and fix their hormones so that they can eat to satiety and not be obese like a normal healthy person.

[Anonymous No.18595994]

>>18595972
>YOUR ANCESTORS WERE HUNGRY BASICALLY 24/7
No they didn't. When you fast on a regular basis as they would have you don't feel hungry 24/7. The hunger goes away after a while and your body gets used to it. They also tended to starve to death quite often, as do many wild mammals.

[Anonymous No.18595995]

>>18595981
500 is not a huge caloric deficit and is sustainable. You are severely deluded.

[Anonymous No.18596002]

>>18595995
eating 500 calories a day is only sustainable if you're a 5'1" manlet. I'm 6'1, have a BMI of 18.5, and if I eat fewer than 2000 calories I lose weight.

[Anonymous No.18596003]

>>18595994
alright so you're just trolling and baiting, have a good day fat tranny

[Anonymous No.18596007]

>>18596003
>Reality is trolling
later retard

[Anonymous No.18596011]

>>18596007
>tranny
>reality

[Anonymous No.18596013]

>>18595995
You have an eating disorder. post wrist

[Anonymous No.18596014]

>>18595994
Yes they did. Craving food and being hungry are very different. You don't stop being hungry when you go on a fast. Maybe you should try it some time you fat fuck.

[Anonymous No.18596015]

>>18595901
There's always a deeper hole, so to speak.

[Anonymous No.18596016]

>>18596014
>You don't stop being hungry when you go on a fast.
You have never fasted before. Stop talking.

>you fat fuck.
see: >>18596002
I guarantee that you are actually fat though.

[Anonymous No.18596022]

>>18595981
>Eating at such a huge caloric deficit is obviously unsustainable
Hardly. When I was 40 I lost 10 pounds a month for 7 months running.
That's a deficit of over 1000 calories a day.
I was walking for exercise, but only about an hour a day so most of the weight loss was eating less.

>telling them to eat fewer calories is retard tier advice.
So every diet ever is wrong?

[Anonymous No.18596025]

>>18595981
>huge caloric deficit is obviously unsustainable
No, it's not obvious to me. Or rather, the only obvious problem with that is the willpower to withstand the sugar withdrawal of the first few days. So we're circling back to our root problem - bad life choices.

[Anonymous No.18596029]

>>18595981
You are correct. Fat people should simply go on a total fast. This removes the problem. Fat people eat food and they can't stop themselves. They eat some food and the craving for corn syrup and salt becomes even stronger and their will eventually breaks.

By simply going on a fast you remove this element entirely.

[Anonymous No.18596042]

>>18596029
It's not a bad idea to get started and to sort of kick-start their metabolism. but they will eventually need to start eating again, and at that point they will need to make modifications to their micro and macronutrient intake as opposed to focusing solely on calories.

[Anonymous No.18596050]

>>18596016
I've been on a 10 day water fast before. I spent a lot of my extra free time watching cooking videos. Just because I didn't have the immediate craving for food sugar and fats doesn't mean I wasn't hungry. Again, you're mistaking your addiction to trash and biological response.
What do you think hunger actually is? A stomach ache? The desire to shove a cup of pure sugar down your throat? Or maybe hunger is actually just the weakness in your body when you don't have food.

[Anonymous No.18596051]

>>18596025
any normal sized person would die of malnutrition on a 500 calorie diet long-term. you're not a smart person.

[Anonymous No.18596052]

>>18596022
Oops, I just noticed another Annon said:
>>18595935
>If the 2nd person drops to 500 calories a day
I missed the "to" before and thought we were talking about reducing 2000 a day by 500, so still eating 1500 a day.
Yeah, 500 seems low, but 1000 isn't unreasonable in my experience (5'11" btw).

[Anonymous No.18596060]

>>18596042
What do you think a fast is? A fast is the definition of CICO just taken to an extreme.

When they start eating again they should pay attention to calories, and they should pay attention to portion sizes. Its that fucking easy.

[Anonymous No.18596063]

This thread made me realize that CICO detractors are fucking retards who think CICO is a diet and not a principle that anyone who's trying to lose weight should respect.

[Anonymous No.18596065]

>>18596051
Any person would die if they were on a calorie deficit for a long enough time frame.

[Anonymous No.18596087]

Worked for me, I lost 70 pounds in 4 or 5 months by following that principle + no added sugar + no goyslop.

[Anonymous No.18596094]

>>18596087
Good for you.
It took me 7 months to lose 70 lbs.
Anybody that loses weight follows that principal whether they know it or not.

[Anonymous No.18596103]

CICO werked on my machine. I counted calories and went for daily 30 min walks and lost 18kg in like 4 months with zero effort and no feelings of being deprived of something.

Maybe the reason CICO fails for people or Americans is that they eat goyslop rather than enjoying tasty homecooked meals.

[Anonymous No.18596104]

>>18596094
Thanks, glad for you too. I'm young so I had an advantage with speed.

The biggest contributor to my weight was eating colossal amounts of junk food and doing 0 exercise. Which I suspect is why most people are fat.

[Anonymous No.18596136]

>>18596104
> I'm young so I had an advantage with speed.
bro anyone would lose mad amounts of weight taking amphetamines

[Anonymous No.18596222]

>>18596060
So long as they still have insulin resistance they will never fix their problem. You can't fix insulin resistance merely by reducing calories.

[Anonymous No.18596259]

>>18595657
Yeah but the thing is he didn't eat "nothing but twinkies", he ate a very balanced diet of nutrient-rich foods, AND some twinkies. But the shills backing him pumped up this story about "the twinkie diet" and it was a CICOtard favorite for many years

[Anonymous No.18596277]

>>18595473
Eat only natural whole foods, avoid refined sugar and refined oils, and eat to satiation. When you're not destroying your body's metabolic processes with industrially refined garbage and only eating nutrient dense whole foods like fatty meat, dairy, eggs, etc you'll be surprised at how easily the whole process of eating the right amounts begins to self-regulate.

[Anonymous No.18596281]

>>18596277
>eat to satiation
This is a man who ate to satiation. Thanks for your advice Doctor Fuckface.

[Anonymous No.18596286]

Cram it, Faggot.

/fit/ is that way >>>>

[Anonymous No.18596292]

>>18596281
Please note the order of the steps I provided, I ordered them that way for a reason. Step 3 is removing refined sugar and refined oils. Did he cut out all refined sugars and refined oils? If not, he should not proceed to step 3.

[Anonymous No.18596298]

>>18596292
>Step 3 is removing
Step 2*
Goddammit you got me all turned around.
Step 1: Eat only natural whole foods.
Step 2: Remove all refined sugars and refined oils.
Step 3: Eat to satiation.

[Anonymous No.18596305]

>>18596281
You need to do all the steps he listed, not cherry pick the ones that you like.

[Anonymous No.18596338]

CICOlards live off starbucks and are mostly CI and little CO. Also they're hilariously autistic with their tracking yet fume when you mention bioavailability.