Calories in, calories out

>body needs atp for all cellular functions
>cellular functions don't happen without atp
>atp comes from transportable and sortable caloric sources like lipids and glucose and to a degree amino acids (via direct oxidation or via conversion to glucose via gluconeogenesis)
>it's literally a matter of calories, measurable on paper - no magic, hormones, feels, keto, metabolism change that
>not calories in, calories out

newtonian physics does not account for the warping of spacetime due to special relativity, if spacetime was completely unaltered then newtonian physics would be completely accurate but to correctly predict the positions/speeds/energies etc of extremely high-speed or high-mass objects such as light or black holes then newtonian models are not true to life. you're correct about quantum physics becoming more and more relevant at sub-atomic scales though.

>debating quantum physics on the fitness section of an indonesian basket-weaving internet forum

>things are complex
>so the only explanation is that a being created them
>there is no possible way a complex, unsupervised system of interacting molecules could develop over billions of years and trillions of life forms to create a complex, self-sustaining system, oh no

Calories in, calories out is true. That is just physics but to say that someone is fat because they are taking in too many calories and not burning enough is a vast oversimplification. This would be like if I went bankrupt and when I was explaining why I went bankrupt I just said, "Well, I lost more money than I earned." Well fucking obviously, but It doesn't address the innumerable amount of underlying reasons that could cause me to lose more money than earn money. The same holds true to losing and gaining weight

>people post shit like this and claim it's why they don't lose weight

wait, what? no it doesn't. It doesn't do that at all.

Yeah I forgot special/general relativity was a part of physics for a moment there.
These engineering exams are getting to my head man...

You are wrong, firstly BMI sucks even for use with normies, if you really need to measure body fat as a clinician you need to use calipers. BMI is just lazy and inaccurate. And you are wrong about the roiders, yes they prove BMI "wrong" but they are only a smaller fragment. Most of the people who BMI is wrong for are people who fall into the normal weight category but are metabolically obese, basically skinny fat, no muscle and a ton of fat but they are still have a 'healthy' BMI. MONW. These people are much more common than the occasional michael phelps who's "overweight" or the marathon runner who's "underweight."

TLDR BMI is more likely to classify skinnyfat metabolically obese people as normal weight/healthy than it classifies athletes as underweight/overweight/unhealthy

The biochem and cell bio shit? Marginally. You don't need to have all the enzymes in the CAC memorized to manage a kid with croup, or balance fluids in a dude with CHF and AKI.

>Calories in, Calories out

what they forget to tell you

>The composition of what you take in also effects how much goes out