>Calories in vs. Calories out
Sure, I think everyone agrees with this.
But why are people so autistic that they assume that the composition of the food you put IN your body doesn't effect what comes OUT?
youtube.com
youtube.com
Defend and extrapolate your opinions after watching these videos.
Other urls found in this thread:
edition.cnn.com
twitter.com
Does calories in calories out work for WEIGHT loss ?
Yes.
These videos are actually pretty fascinating. I'm half way through the 2nd video (didn't watch the first). He makes a lot of great points and I'm enjoying it so far.
Thanks for sharing, I might "defend and extrapolate" after I'm done watching both.
Not relevant to the post
Well yes it is because the reason people say "calories in vs calories out" is always simply in relation to losing/gaining weight.
Nobody with any sense argues that nutrient content isn't important for health and body comp.
>Nobody with any sense argues that nutrient content isn't important for health and body comp.
welcome to Veeky Forums enjoy your stay
prove it
I am a dumb cunt, not gonna watch an hour of some guys speech. Give TL:DW version
I love this Dr. Fung guy. Op you are based as fuck this is just what I needed. Thanks for bringing these to my attention. Wondering if the 1st video will be as interesting as the 2nd.
Its kinda late and I don't have much to defend or extrapolate on. Its just one of those things where your common sense just "gets it". It makes sense and his caveman metaphors are spot on. I've been trying to shed these stubborn 10-15 lbs and I'm going to give a water-only fast a shot.
>calories in calories out is used for weight loss
>"n-not relevant"
You quoted the wrong thing, you look like the most autistic nigger right now
Already saw Dr. Fung speech before and it opend my eyes, Dr. Bikman definitely takes it to a next level with proving what Dr. Fung was claiming. What you eat definitely matters when it comes to the storage of fat. Thanks for the video OP, wish we could have more threads like these.
personally OP, i think the thought process is that calories in/out simply supersedes what goes in/out in terms of "i need to lose weight, eating less is the fastest way to do that." No, it isnt necessarily healthy, and if you dont hit your macros when cutting youre at risk of cellular starvation, but its how to lose weight and that is the goal.
Who says that, have any of you taken a chemistry class? Calories in vs calories out affects weight loss/gain because if you put in less energy then you use, the body needs to break down different molecules for energy(usually fat) and that mass is mostly exhaled as gas. Obviously nutrition plays a role in body composition, just very negligible in terms of weight.
The effect on metabolism is not 'negligable' the videos show massive decreases in basal metabolism on a simple calorie restriction diet.
Again people are ignoring the 'calories out' and assume this just means exercise
Because there was a one guy who wanted to prove that all he had to do to lose weight was the ol calories in v calories out method. He was on a diet of twinkies and chocolate and still lost weight.
shitty source but still.
edition.cnn.com
HOWEVER this wont work over a long period of time due to a range of evidence
>anecdote of guy doing a thing
>sceintific studies
hmm
that is absolutely absurd.
unless they also and these people completely sedentary in bed, the basal metabolism will not change by any significant amount.
Your body cannot create energy out of nothing.
even with a pathetic TDEE like 1000kcal a day, you can just to light cardio for a few hours to raise that to 2000+
if you live an active lifestyle your TDEE won't ever EVER EVER drop below 3000kcal a day
thing is most people are not active at all
Not that user but,
I was under the impression that on a strict caloric deficit for an extended period of time your TDEE will go down as your body adapts and become more efficient in respect to burning calories.
Like say you have been cutting for 6 months
>I'm under the impression your TDEE will be LOWER in relation to someone with the same stats who has been eating at maintence or at a surplus
no this is not true
your body can become efficient at "surviving" for a long time without food, but only if you are constantly in a sedentary / bed ridden state
there is no possibility whatsoever to become "super humanly" efficient at doing work (running, lifting, gardening, walking, etc)
just be active most of your day and this is 100% a non-issue
there is no way the human body will break the laws of thermodynamics
The point is that you will feel incredibly fatigued, which is the way your body adapts. This is because due to moderate to high insuline levels, your body will not access your fat stores. You can't do the work unless your muscles have the fuel to do it.
By fasting, your bodies' insulin levels become normal again, which allows you to burn fat as a fuel.
That second video has nothing to do with food composition. I honestly have always been led to believe that metabolic rates didn't change that much, nevertheless it makes sense regardless of that guy saying about breaking thermodynamics.
Does anyone have info on how long you have to fast to "normalize" insulin levels to use the fat as energy. He mentioned even very low calories can do it? Also, would a low calorie diet + heavy cheat days counteract the drop in metabolic rates?
yeah on his blog in addition he does talk about food which doesn't stimulate insulin production as much: mainly fats, food with lots of fibre and carbs with low GI and somehow vinegar??
These videos have sold me on the endocrine theory and on the utility of a low-carb diet for fat loss.
I'm cutting at the moment and I am seriously considering removing high-carb foods from my diet thanks to this video.
I might even incorporate regular fasting thanks to Dr. Fung.