Is calories in, calories out, a gross oversimplification?

Is calories in, calories out, a gross oversimplification?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

we are done here. sage.

yes.

There's all these biochemical nuances that people will argue, but for all intents and purposes, it just works.

Anyone who says CICO didn't work for them is them is full of shit. They didn't truly adhere to the diet.

There are exceptions to the rule in terms of people with disorders and such but for the most part unless you have one of the aforementioned disorders (not just think you do without a doctor telling you that you do), CICO is a good rule of thumb

?
no

I use to track calories and all macros, but I stopped.

Now-days when I cut I just track protein, and eat mostly veggies, so I eat like 150-200g protein, and the rest of my cals just comes from veggies. Makes it easier on the mind to not be tracking everything down to the T using a food scale, myfitnesspal etc.

fpbp

>There are exceptions to the rule
no there's not, there are disorders that maybe mean that they are burning more calories doing the same activities as other people (or the opposite) but that doesn't void the rule of CICO. It just means that calculating how many calories they are burning on a daily basis isn't as easy to do as it would be on a normal person...you can't avoid the 2nd law of thermodynamics

Sort of.

Calories out is variable. +- 15% over two standard deviations of the population.

Over or under eating change can start or stop adaptive thermo genisis, literraly just makeing heat from excess energy.

So while eating less than you use, or more, will result in weight change, what you use can change quickly and largley.

Thats why its important to track the change on the scales, and adjust accordingly

No, but a lot of people are morons and can't count properly - both when it comes to calories consumed and calories burned.

>underestimating caloric intake
>overestimating how much they burnt doing 15 minutes of curls

And then skinnies have the opposite problem wherr they consistently overestimate consumption and underestimate caloric burn.

One cunt was complaining how he ate 3000 kcal yet wasn't gaining weight. Turned out he walked about 19 miles a day because of his job, as well as working out most nights.

It just works

People are morons though and think they should ONLY be concerned about calories so instead of eating clean they begin to eat shit like chocolate bars etc. thinking it's completely okay

youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

>not understanding different thermodynamic effects of each food

Care to explain?

Obviously it's oversimplified. The body isn't an engine that converts for directly to energy. It stores that fuel for later use and that storage makes it more complex than cals in / out.

Different foods metabolize differently,
Watch this video.

store this *unzpis dick*

Technically it's true but foods can influence the calories in and calories out parts of it. If you eat a fuckton of broccoli you will spend calories digesting it and you have a net negative calorie consumption from it even though there are carbs and protons. And if you fall asleep after a huge meal you're not burning a lot of calories.

Also of course iifym only works for calories and weight control. Eat your veggies and little salt and lots of potassium and all that shit.

Former fatty here. I've never done anything more than running caloric deficits (with added cardio) and it's worked for me -BUT-
a) Weightloss isn't linear. You'll feel like shit because you're not losing weight on a weekly basis and suddenly you'll notice your love handles are gone.
b) Your TDEE isn't as high as you think it is. Your cardio does not burn as many calories as you think it does.

If you are interested in understanding how your body works, it's an EXTREMELY gross oversimplification.
If you wanna lose some pounds, it's a good starting point, from there you can fine tune it manually.

.

>it's too complex
If you don't loose weight you should eat less, if you don't gain eat more how complex could that be?

And yet the video contains pic related.

It, like most all marketing material on diet, contains a good dose of leaps of logic and hand waving and cherry picking. (lol here is 2 diets that work and they both eliminate fructose therefore fructose makes you fat).

In the end it still argues that its excess consumption of calories that is making people fat.

For the TLDW crowd the cliff notes on the video:
- 3 solid minutes of intro, consisting of a 60 year old man with a shitty sense of humor trying to be funny
- absurd requirement that there must be a unified cause of obesity
- formula showing weight gain from calories, following first law of thermodynamics
- claim that leptin is sole satiety trigger
- sugar is poison
- presenter reveals he is still actively angry about Nixon presidency
- presenter curses (probably "shit"), word is beeped out
- food supply has been fucked with by jews, no fiber
- more sugar graphs showing fatness
- graphics showing metabolic processes with sugar
- government can't tell the truth would hurt economy
- sugar giving people too much calories

Anyway I mostly stopped paying attention after this but you get the idea.

Nah, its good senpai

cutting back at the carbs is a simple way to loosen the fat. Plus you don't need them when losing weight
inb4 ketofag: I'm saying less than 100 net carbs a day,which is easily done if you eat veggies to your hearts contents and stay away from meme oats/grain and unnatural sweets

If you eat less carbs but more fat, you'll still gain or maintain weight.

and at least carbs will get you glycogen and allow you to do high intensity exercice , will then yield more EPOC and thus more total calories out kek .

You are better served thinking
>EAT LESS
>MOVE MORE
it's the same thing as cal in cal out, but focuses on using your current situation as a starting point, not just 'counting', that some might take too much as gospel.

/thread

You guys are morons. The human body isn't a combustion engine or some shit.

OP, the asshats above notwithstanding, yes, there is a little more to it than that. The difference is in the question behind the question. You will lose weight in a caloric deficit, but you can not count on a caloric deficit alone to get into shape for multiple reasons.

Your body can store fat even if you are [Calories in] < [calories out]. BUT, your body will still need to find energy from somewhere... which will be muscle. That will lower your BRM, which means that you will need to further reduce your caloric intake to continue to be in deficit.

I assume that you are asking if a caloric deficit is the way to get into shape. The answer is to run a caloric deficit while eating a healthy and high protein diet and lifting weights. It is a three legged stool. You have to have all three if you aren't either really young or on gear.

BMR... derp

yeah keep teling yourself that virgin

i think it's generally a correct principle
the body uses energy from food to function
if no energy comes from food, the body uses it's stored energy to function
looks pretty logical to me

I slight over simplification. Yes, there are complex processes at work that can make mild differences in different people's caloric needs. But, no those differences are not making you >20lb overweight.