Can we kill this calories in calories out memeing once and for all using common sense?

Yes. I fell for the eating clean meme for years.

Since i switched to nonrestrictive dieting and IF, i have lost weight easier, and made hella gains.

I think i was deficient in saturated fats when i was eating healthy.

Kinobody really knows what is up regarding nutrition.

>>Found the guy who cant track macros

I said
>just going to eat chocolate

That implies not eating anything else, fucking moron.

Have you tried eating food and seeing how your body reacts. My best advice for you regarding nutrition.

I went from 95kg to 77kg sub 10%bf in six months with minimal loss of strength and muscle and I ate Nutella and ice cream daily. Plus, as a phd in gastrointestinal health, I can tell you calories in/out is all that matters in terms of fat loss. But of course, all calories aren't created equal and certain foods are superior in terms of fibre, micronutrients etc. If between 80-90% of your calories come from whole, unprocessed food sources your fibre and micronutrients will sort themselves out. There is no reason you can't eat foods you enjoy as long as you exerise discipline and track your macros. But for fat loss, literally all that matters is calories

The way I describe nutrition to people is if a person uses 2500 calories in a day, they will lose fat unless their hormones are absolutely fucked or they have one of the very rare gene mutations that prevents weight loss. Even if those calories come from nothing but Nutella, they'll lose fat. They'll get diabetes, but they'll be lean

~they will lose fat if they eat 2000 calories
Stupid phone

I don't do keto, actually.

I just eat fewer carbs than I normally would and restrict large carb meals to breakfast and pre workout

>Does the body shit out more calories in one case?
Let me explain why that question shows that you are ignorant to the conservation of energy:

>Chips 500kcal/100g
>Water 0kcal/100g

Yes, the body expels more calories in one case. 100g of both water and chips contain the exact same amount of energy; their mass times the speed of light squared. Approximatly 2,000,000,000,000kcal/100g.

The kcal we consider nutrition is the amount of energy that can be utilized by the body: The rate of absorbtion is already accounted for in the number on the nutrition label! it's the *ONLY* reason food has different energy value to begin with!
Thusly, "calories in, calories out" provides a perfect and complete answer to the question you posed.

Here it is: Calories shat out = c^2(m-x/7700)
where x is the amount of calories ingested and m is the mass of that food in kg. This equation takes into account that you store calories as body fat, 7700kcal/kg, if you shit a negative amount of calories it means that you'll gain more mass than what you consumed because you ate something more calorie dense than body fat, like pure cooking oil. Obviously you'd have to consume more mass for that to be possible, but that mass is mostly water.

>Can we kill this calories in calories out memeing once and for all using common sense?
Common sense pretty much died on 9/11. Sorry, pal.

I don't believe that 1000 calories of steak, veggies, whole grains etc is processed the same as 1000 calories of sausages, orange juice, hash browns etc, especially when you read about fiber and nuts.

I do know that to lose weight you must eat less and vice versa, and counting calories works really well

Of course someone whose eating 1500 calories of chocolate a day isn't going to be as healthy as someone whose eating 1500 calories of protien fat and carbs with a proper micronutrient balance thats retarded to think otherwise.

But they're both going to lose weight, just the chocolate guy is going to be a barely functioning mess.

Found the fatass

Why should we take nutrition advice from fat people? Keep in mind you are the one trying to defend CICO, and by your own omission, you have a weight problem.

>The carbs that aren't burned for energy get stored as fat very rapidly. Protein and fat take much longer to convert and don't convert as efficiently.

Turning carbohydrate into fat is inefficient. Fat is already fat, so is the easiest macro to store as body fat.

correct

Do retards like you really not know that the thermogenic effect of food is already accounted for in your caloric intake? Do you really not know that fats and proteins have primary uses aside from providing energy, and thus are processed differently by the body? I know it's hated on here, but go to bodybuilding.com and read their informative sticky on everything related to calories. It will answer your stupid questions and then some.

>Fat is already fat, so is the easiest macro to store as body fat.

Your body can't just cram any old fat into fat cells, that's not how our bodies work. You don't think that the olive oil in your meal is being deposited directly in your bitch tits, do you?

> every person's body converts food to energy at the same efficiency

No, you idealistic retard, if you take a laxative before you eat, you're not getting all the calories from the food you will intake compared with if you didn't take the laxative. It's literally impossible to account for the actual efficiency of everyone's body, and the most science can is provide an upper bound or an average value based upon a ton of assumptions that we assume should hold for a good majority of people. This isn't even debatable because it's painfully obvious... yet, incredibly, there are hopeless retards like you who still can manage to not understand

Do you really think that very minute differences between people means that eating under your personal tdee (which accounts for those differences) still won't make you lose weight? You're supposed to use a tdee calculator to get an estimate like you said, but then you're supposed to track your weight and body fat percentage yourself and adjust your tdee to your body. Yes there's some guess work involved, but nothing you're bitching about changes the fact that eating fewer calories than you need will make you lose weight, nor has anything you said not already been accounted for in weight loss. Your whole argument boils down to "it's hard, so why try".

>taking a laxative before you eat

Why? Obviously if you absorb fewer calories then you'll be further under your tdee, but who does that?

It doesn't take olive oil and put it right in your fat cells, but as a fat, it's already structurally similar and is much easier to convert for storage. If you have a lot of olive oil in your diet, your body fat will show higher levels of oleic acid.

And what about phytonutrients, hunger satiation, lipid ratios, amino acid profiles, and glycemic index? There's a lot of factors that determine whether or not a food is a healthy option.

So.....? You calculate an estimate, and eat less than that. If you don't lose weight at the correct weight, clean up any errors in your calorie tracking and lower your intake until you do lose weight. If you eat under your true real world TDEE you WILL lose weight. If you give up after a couple of weeks because it's not working, you didn't really want it in the first place.

That's true, but it doesn't immediately get deposited like that user thinks. Fat serves many important metabolic uses, and will only be stored as fat if there's a caloric surplus and a surplus of fat, just like anything else. It requiring less energy to be stored is already factored into the thermogenic effect of food.

It's stored after every meal. If your calories don't reach excess by the end of the day, they'll be tapped into again and you won't gain weight of course. Nobody said otherwise.

>Fat serves many important metabolic uses

Let's not get too crazy with that line of thinking. It's really polyunsaturated fats specifically that are essential, and your requirement for them is something like 2% of daily calories. Most of the fat you eat doesn't do shit.

>Let's not get too crazy with that line of thinking. It's really polyunsaturated fats specifically that are essential, and your requirement for them is something like 2% of daily calories. Most of the fat you eat doesn't do shit.

Nice vegan meme.

Calories in vs. Calories out is ONLY VALID FOR WEIGHT GAIN OR LOSS.
Surplus = Weight gain.
Deficit = Weight loss.
Period.

If you want to differentiate between fat and muscle loss/gain, you need to take macros into account.
If you want to differentiate between "healthy" and "unhealthy", you have to take micronutrients into account.

I'm not saying you should strive to get 2% of your calories from fat, but factually, for metabolic needs, about 2% from LA and ALA covers it. Anything else is going to your tits.

Max Stirner is a meme picked up by Veeky Forums from /r/badphilosophy, which endorsed him ironically.

He, like Feuerbach, is no longer talked about (outside of Veeky Forums) because he was like Nietszche minus the Wagner, Camus minus the prose--too edgy for us all and not very convincing.

Also, the caloric model of food isn't popular among dieticians, coaches, etc. just because of thermodynamics; it's popular because it works extremely well.