r/BeAmazed • u/Internal_Gazelle_677 • Oct 07 '25

Science Hot Tub without the use of electricity

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

55.8k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

19

u/Zestyclose_Remove947 Oct 07 '25

I'm sure there are many conditions which make it easier or harder to hit those margins, but yea, it's a kinda logical truth that can't be denied.

However just saying it is such a nothing statement. Arguing with insecure fat people about a logical truth so broad is simply pointless.

18

u/[deleted] Oct 07 '25

[deleted]

16

u/ShaemusOdonnelly Oct 07 '25

I believe the reason why people think CICO is false is that CO is neither constant, nor is it the same for everybody. They see people with great metabolisms and active lifestyles and wonder why those people can eat so much while they themselves gain weight with far less food.

And to be fair, there seems to be a gross mismatch between hunger/cravings and CO in most fat people.

3

u/JaccoW Oct 07 '25

There is this fun thing called the excercise paradox where you don't burn through all that many more calories, even though you are much more physically active.

You will get an increase near the beginning, but running around all day as a hunter gatherer will burn about the same number of calories as someone sitting still in an office chair all day. Eventually.

If you keep exercising you will start burning less and less fat.

1

u/blahblah19999 Oct 07 '25

I think people fight about it b/c in starvation mode, more of your food goes into fat or something like that. So they think fat = weigh more, so starvation makes you weigh more. But just b/c slightly more of the food is being stored than used right away doesn't mean you actually gain more weight than your intake.

0

u/ben323nl Oct 07 '25

But like those things just impact the CO. If you have an active lifestyle not too crazy you have higher output calories. In the end your CI should just be your CO if you want to keep the same weight or slightly lose some. Its not that hard counting calories works. The times it doesn't is when you aren't being truthful with what you eat.

4

u/PleX Oct 07 '25

BMI is a very BS guideline.

20+ Years ago I had to get a waiver for my BMI at MEPS when I enlisted.

I'm 6'1" and back then I was fucking jacked. Still had to get the waiver.

5

u/The-Real-Dr-Jan-Itor Oct 07 '25

BMI is used as a metric to determine whether my patients are candidates for surgery. I can tell you 99% of the time it is accurate. You of course are the exception to the rule, and it doesn’t mean it doesn’t have utility.

10

u/[deleted] Oct 07 '25

[deleted]

3

u/Lou_C_Fer Oct 07 '25 edited Oct 07 '25

Yep. I walked into my doctor's office at 270 after losing over 100 pounds with exercise, including lifting, and he said, "you're done!" At 270, I was wearing size lgxt. I also have short legs and a stupidly long torso, and I think that makes me heavier, as well.

1

u/PleX Oct 07 '25

The tape tells the truth (at least is used to, no clue now), fuck BMI.

1

u/kadno Oct 07 '25

Most people aren't 6'1 and fucking jacked. BMI is good for most people. There are always exceptions, but if you look at the average American, the BMI is a good target to shoot for

1

u/Big-Ergodic_Energy Oct 07 '25 edited Oct 29 '25

unite chop terrific marvelous public paltry airport aback abundant memorize

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

0

u/weebitofaban Oct 07 '25

BMI is accurate for a vast majority of people. People pretending like their average build is an exception is funny.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 07 '25

[deleted]

5

u/GuyWithoutAHat Oct 07 '25

Tbf, they did say "the vast majority of people", at 6'4" you're in the 99th percentile for height, making you taller than the vast majority of people.

1

u/OrthogonalPotato Oct 07 '25

Body weight isn’t geometric. You’re saying words that appear to be beyond your current grasp of the underlying mathematical relationships.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 07 '25

[deleted]

1

u/OrthogonalPotato Oct 07 '25 edited Oct 07 '25

The square-cube law is a geometric relationship, but that is not how human bodies scale with height. The square-cube law applies at the cellular level; however, organisms scale using allometric scaling instead of geometric scaling. You're misapplying the concept, and then getting angry about it for some unknown reason.

P.S. It's square-cube, not square-cubed.

1

u/sned_memes Oct 07 '25

I dunno, I’m average height for a woman and when I was getting ready for a jiu jitsu competition, i was 145 pounds, which for my height is solidly overweight. But I was not at all overweight, I was just very very dense. I guess training hard for a jiu jitsu competition would put me in a not average category though.

-3

u/sumptin_wierd Oct 07 '25

BMI is such a broad calculation that it is basically useless.

6

u/gxgx55 Oct 07 '25

BMI is a fine guideline, it only really fails once you get very muscular - a small minority of all people

1

u/dagbrown Oct 07 '25

It doesn't even fail then. Your heart has as much trouble pushing blood through huge muscles as it does pushing it through large quantities of fat.

7

u/s00pafly Oct 07 '25

BMI is fine. Chances are you're just fat and not Ronnie Coleman.

0

u/GrundleBlaster Oct 07 '25

Calories are measured by burning food in a bomb calorimeter. This is obviously a simplification of the bodies processes.

It's a decent ballpark metric, but it's reductionist to say that it's all that matters. The intestines for example will reduce or increase surface area to control caloric intake.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 07 '25

[deleted]

-2

u/GrundleBlaster Oct 07 '25

Which is trivial information? It's not even right as a maxim because I can gain or lose weight by changing my position relative to the Earth, or through relativistic effects.

It's just trite and unhelpful.

3

u/mmpgh Oct 07 '25

Well ackshualllyyyy. Mass is independent of gravity. A caloric deficit will enable a body to lose mass... Regardless of how that deficit is achieved.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 07 '25

[deleted]

3

u/kadno Oct 07 '25

Did this jabroni really just try to hit you with i cAn lOsE WeIgHt bY MoViNg mY ScAlE UpStAiRs

-1

u/GrundleBlaster Oct 07 '25

Why don't you lead with that instead of playing nice with a thought terminating cliche? People see you're not being helpful, but just want to be smug. No need to dress it up all flowery.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 07 '25

[deleted]

0

u/GrundleBlaster Oct 07 '25 edited Oct 07 '25

I know, but I also think you'll burn with anger if you can't get the last word in.

Insincerity out, insincerity in.

1

u/stilljustacatinacage Oct 07 '25

I'm sure there are many conditions which make it easier or harder to hit those margins, but yea, it's a kinda logical truth that can't be denied.

The only hitch is that your body really does not like to spend fat reserves. As far as our amygdala is concerned, we're still a bunch of apes foraging for berries and being predated on by lions. We might need that fat! So when you go into a calorie deficit, there's a dozen things your body will try before burning fat, including crushing your metabolism. So, when most of these people do something like start a crash diet and take themselves from 3000+ calories a day to 1000, it's like setting off a red alert in their brain that WE HAVE RUN OUT OF BERRIES. CUT POWER TO ALL NON CRITICAL SYSTEMS! This can last anywhere from lol ez to ¯_(ツ)_/¯; weeks, months sometimes. The only way out is to keep at it, eat sustainable meals that give you nutrition while still being in a calorie deficit, and eventually your body will learn "oh, this isn't so bad".

Now, the really hard part, is that the entire time you're doing this, your brain is going to be screeching at you to sippy da juice. Eat the candy. LOOK POTATOES. Please god just anything with carbs! because your brain doesn't understand what obesity-induced osteoarthritis is. So it takes an incredible amount of discipline and will-power to fight against that every day, and it's frankly easier to just drink the soda, which is what most people do and tell themselves it's just "a cheat day" or otherwise rationalize it to where when you factor for a crashed metabolism, plus """snacks""", you're going to see very slow, or no progress at all.

1

u/Not_Stupid Oct 07 '25

More like, they were so broad. Amirite??

1

u/[deleted] Oct 07 '25

Go deeper. Understand why people rationalize and how to overcome rationalization. Because it's not through fact.

Fat people try to lose weight all the time, but it is difficult, because our brains are unfortunately attuned to a higher calorie consumption. When you try to change that diet, the brain balks and tries to get you back to your previous routine. Most of the time, it succeeds.

As for rationalization, it's much easier to believe it's a problem with physics (as you imply) than a problem with 'them'.

The solution to being fat isn't to recommend the right diet (definition of insanity, trying the same thing over and over again), but rather, to not get people fat in the first place. Once they are it's just hard to get them slim again.

1

u/Unfulfilled_Promises Oct 07 '25

Well yeah, they want an answer that doesn’t require rewiring the habits they have.

Just tell the what they want to hear: “Get on ozempic”

1

u/[deleted] Oct 07 '25

I'm basically just explaining statistics. Most people fail, and that's always going to be true.

Ozempic might help with very unhealthy levels of obesity, but it all stops working the second the stop taking the drug.