CALORIES IN VS CALORIES OUT IS BULLSHIT

>Energy and mass are equivalent.
I would like to know how this applies to CICO and fatloss, care to elaborate?

Or are you just a moron who talks about things you don't understand.

I know I drink 3 kg of water every day and after I do it I weigh 3kg more.

CICO is false. It's all about weight. You want to lose 5 kg you should only eat 500 g food a meal

>If I wear a rucksack and put two plates in it, I will gain 90lbs. Ergo, mass is not equivalent to energy.
You will piss out any water your body doesn't need. That water will not be used to create new cells or repair those that are damaged. It will not become a part of the organism known as "you".
The human body uses food to do the above and converts the excess into fat cells. These fat cells become an intrinsic, regulated part of your body. They can store water, like a vessel but, if I pore water in a jug, the water does not become the jug...
The human body is an open-system. Stop saying thermodynamics like you faggots know what you're talking about...

T. Actual engineer specializing in fluid mechanics.

>1g of fat
>1g of carbohydrate

really makes you think!

Go change some engine oil and stop pretending you know anything about biology.

>500 g food a meal
Are you actively trying to make people fat?

That's not even a lot of food. If you make every meal 500g water you will be fine

kill yourself seriously

You people laugh, but most of you are hopefully now realizing that you never really understood how or why calories (energy) affect bodyweight (mass).

lol i'd never thought people actually had some sense.

Calories in / Calories out is really stupid if you think about the complexity of the human organism and how it functions. You have to be a literal retard to think simple laws of physics apply to processing food and energy regulation in the human body.

About that "they can store water" thing tho.
Cells don't actually store water.
You don't actually have any "water" in your body at all. Water gets transformed into a fluid with electrolytes in it, it's not exactly water when it's going to be used in a cell.

t.no expert but not stupid.

No, you kill yourself. He's right.

OP your trolling would be better if your spelling was better, otherwise it just makes you look like an idiot. GB2

The same way it applies to everything else. It's a universal law...
Your body MUST consume mass in order to release energy. If it does not consume mass from fat cells, it must consume it from other cells. Either way, your mass will reduce in direct relation to the amount of energy released.
>but I said fat, user
Biochemistry. Your body needs the reagents required to perform the necessary chemical reactions i.e. to breakdown fat cells in this case. In some cases, the body will construct these itself from other available compounds. However, if a more efficient method of releasing energy is available (or you have some kind of genetic defect or abnormality), the body may choose that method. It may consume proteins (muscle), for example.
Assuming you're a normal, healthy and active human being who consumes a diet that includes those prerequisites, your body will consume fat cells. If your diet is poor and you're inactive, your body may burn (redundant) protein instead. This is why "all calories are not equal".
>that breaks the laws of physics
Obviously, a calorie is a calorie. In physiological terms, however, the chemical composition matters. You need those reagents. If you don't get them, the body will not be able to efficiently burn fat.
You will still lose the same amount of mass but, if you lose protein rather than fat, you'll still look like shit.

>Your body MUST consume mass in order to release energy.
What do you mean by "consume" mass. Is that mass transformed into energy?

>You have to be a literal retard to think simple laws of physics apply to processing food and energy regulation in the human body.
Of course a simple model for isolated systems doesn't exactly apply to the human body, but an accurate model of the human body is way too complex to bother examining. No one is going to regulate their consumption and exercise in a strict enough manner to even apply such a model. It doesn't need to be perfect; CICO is close enough, you autist. Also,
>H2O changes it's chemical composition when a solute is added
Come on

>H2O changes it's chemical composition when a solute is added
I was merely trying to say that water you drink isn't the same as water that's in your cells and body.

Pleb tier plebian

Is this an attempt to shitpost?
Weight and mass are not the same thing...
>structure of matter is a direct expression of energy
Fat cells and sugars have different material structures. A gram of fat is equivalent to 9kcal of energy; a carb to 4.
This is what you appear to be saying
>if I release 32 kcal of energy, I can consume 4g of fat, or 8g of protein
Makes sense, right? Wrong...
Imagine we set up a pressure plate that we then punch, exchanging exactly 32 kcal of energy from our body to the plate.
By your assumption, we could burn either 4g of fat, or 8g of protein...
But you're assuming a closed-system with no losses. And I'm not talking about biomechanical dynamic losses e.g. friction.
The body EXPENDS energy to RELEASE energy. Cells don't just miraculously transform from mass to energy...
Let's say I want to release the energy contained in a piece of wood, in the form of heat. First, I have to apply energy, say by consuming a match. This initial input of energy causes the structure of the wood to start to break down, releasing it's stored energy. Some of that energy is transferred into the rest of the structure, causing it to breakdown, while the excess is released as heat (good) and light ('wasted' energy). Assuming the wood stored 32kcal of energy, I will not get 32kcal of heat. Even if I got 100% heat efficiency, I have to deduct the energy I put in in the first place.
Now, consider that energy input again. Could I use the match to release the energy stored in a piece of steel?

Once you resolve all of the various reactions involved, you'll find that the energy expended will always be equivalent to the mass consumed. The variables are the reagents and the structure of the mass itself (the expression of its energy state). Have you ever looked at the periodic table? If so, what's the fundamental difference between iron and carbon?

conservation of mass and conservation of energy are different things, but one leads to the other. Yes there are studies that long term crash dieting leads to decrease of metabolism, this process is relatively slow and is reversed quickly. Even with the decrease in metabolic rate, or conservation of energy, if you are still at a caloric deficit at the end of the day you will lose weight. Pretty sure this is bait, but had to respond

I don't even know who's serious anymore.

Yes. Mass IS energy. Mass is *stored* energy. Every other expression of energy is dynamic. It will remain dynamic unless it is stored as mass.
Every fundamental force in physics is an expression of *potential difference* between energy states, and NOTHING more than that.
That difference might be expressed as pressure, or heat, or electro-motive force, but it's all a metaphor for the same shit.
To release x units of energy, your body must convert x units of mass into energy. The conversion itself will consume energy(mass). The amount will depend on the form of stored energy that is converted, and the form of stored energy of the reagent. Assuming no other losses, the energy stored in the reagents and the storage vessel (their mass x speed of light^2) will be equivalent to the (dynamic) energy released. You could also work backwards to calculate the mass of the reagents by measuring the dynamic energy released. You would know their mass, but not their chemical composition - more detective work required for that.

That doesn't make sense

Watch this vídeo. The good part starts at 06:20

youtube.com/watch?v=cRSeyCZwEUI

Let me sum this up for retards...
>imagine two types of energy storage cell, X cell and Y cell
>both weigh 1g
>X stores 9 kcal of energy
>Y stores 4 kcal of energy
>it takes 3 kcal of energy to release the 9kcal of energy in X - net energy = 6 kcal
>it takes 2 kcal to release the energy in Y - net energy = 2 kcal

Let's say you're carrying a little extra X, and you've been eating regularly. Burning X seems like a good deal, right? You get triple your money! But it uses more energy than Y...
Now you're starving and have little X reserves... your body starts burning Y.
>why burn Y at all? Why not just convert the 2kcal directly?
Can it even be converted into dynamic energy? What's the biological mechanism?

Above is random example just to illustrate earlier posts.

Now assume that
>reagent A (3 kcal) is used to convert X to energy
>reagent B (2 kcal) is used to convert Y
>both can be derived from food, or
>manufactured from other cells but the cost to manufacture A is 6 kcal; cost of B is 1 kcal

Again, very simplistic example, but consider now, you eat plenty of A, everything is good, keeping that X off.
Now, you start eating shit, no A, plenty of B. What does your body do?

This is why a calorie is not a calorie... a calorie is only a calorie when your body has enough A *and* B, and can choose the optimum route.
That is why you might consume protein before fat. You'll still consume the same mass.

>E=mc^2 doesn't make sense
>watch this vid
Will watch but have low expectations...

every expert who uses cals in vs cals out are very aware that a calorie isnt always a calorie(its mostly due to the thermic effect of protein), but it doesnt matter.
Unless your macros vary by huge degrees in the long run, it has no effect on kcals in vs cals out.

This vid is actually OK, though a little autistic. Take e.g.
>cooking food results in less calorie consumption (to paraphrase)
We'll, yeah. Not only have you released some of the calorific content, you're going to use less reagents (see above posts) to convert what's left (since part of that job is done already).
This reminds of the BMI debate. I have a BMI of 26.5. I'm officially overweight. I have a BF % of 12...so it's bullshit, right? No, it's an attempt to simplify a highly complex system.
Note, I agree, a calorie is not a calorie (in this context). My argument is that energy is mass and that the laws of thermodynamics are universal. The energy equation will always balance out, but what that energy is converted to/from can differ, wildly. Mass is not equivalent to density...
Will a person who has a slow metabolism or some other deficit convert stored energy, in the form of food, into stored energy, in the form of fat/protein cells, and then convert that into dynamic energy as efficiently as someone who has a high metabolism? No, of course not, BECAUSE THERE IS MORE WASTE.
The analogy used most often in thermodynamics is the heat engine or exchanger. We aim for 100% efficiency, but this is theoretically impossible. There are always losses. The first person is a heat exchanger with e.g. 70% efficiency, while the second is a heat exchanger with 90% efficiency. The difference doesn't just vanish into thin air (actually, some of it might, but hopefully you get me). Energy cannot be destroyed.
So it's lost somewhere, in inefficient processes that produce waste (often literally).
The body is highly complex. The human brain is the most complex aggregate so far discovered (in the entire Universe). Quantum Physicists tackle complexity with probabilistic math. Health experts do it by basing models on the average. It's a good place to start.
If you aren't losing weight on a 250kcal deficit, you don't argue with thermodynamics. You adjust and move on.

>Drink 10kg of water a day
CALIRIES IN KALERIES UOT IZ A MEEM

>stop eating completely
>gain 30 lbs

Thermodynamics aside...
If you consume 2500 kcal of food and gain weight, you don't expend 2500 kcal of energy. It doesn't matter how your expending it, whether on physical exercise or on the conversion processes themselves. Either way, in sum, you aren't expending it. The laws of physics refute all other explanations.

It wasn't bait you fucking retard, it was a joke