Are all calories really equal? Or are some more equal than others?

>what is gluconeogenesis

Alright fag, you can go back to fluffing now

You must eat 6000 calories of only chicken breast for the most efficient gains, anything else turns to fat.

is this bait

Yes though high glyemic index is more likely to lead to health problems (sugar destroys arteries) , and in someone sedentary, fat gain.

i'd be butthurt too if i was as dumb as you
nice try tho guy

>carbs are unnecessary

>carbs

Carbs are not necessary for survival. But carbs are anabolic and low-carb lowers test. So I'd say your pretty dumb if you want to make gains but dont want carbs.

>carbs are unnecessary
unless you are a baby and feed on breast milk, yes carbs are biologically unnecessary

>But carbs are anabolic
no you fucking idiot, fat is anabolic, high-carb diet in people creates high-estrogen. just look at fat americans. they look like pregnant bitches when on a high-carb diet

I bet I can get 99% of the calories out of chocolate but only 95% or so out of oats bc the high fiber protects some of the starch and protein from digestion
prove me wrong
prove me wrong

>no carbs
enjoy your low enery

Calories are measured by burning the food and measuring how much energy is created.
Your body doesn't process all food the same way. It will also very from person to person.

It's an interesting indicator but in no way reliable.

Yes, when it comes to weightloss. When it comes to health and muscle gains and actually functioning as a human being, no. You can lose weight on any diet. But here is the catch, you will lose muscle too, if you dont get your protein and your resistance training and you will develop health issues if you dont get your essential fatty acids, micronutrients and aminoacids.

Whats the best place to read up on everything glycemic index related with no nonsense

Kys thank you

There will be a lot of debate here about sugar, but there is an undeniably useless calorie source, and that is alcohol.

The human body isn't a fucking steam engine

>carbs are unnecessary

>refeed carbs for 1 day on a 3 month cut and I can lift more weight than ever before, even before cut started

>carbs are unnecessary

simple carbs vs complex carbs, saturated fats vs healthy, protein ratios, etc.

biologically unnecessary if you're okay being a ketotard zombie coffee addict pmsl

> fat is necessary for cell-function and energy

2 kinds of fat are essential: omega-3 and omega-6. The daily requirement is stupidly low, like 3% of calories.

Highest GI foods are simple sugars (soda, candy, etc). Complex carbs (whole wheat, oats, etc) will still spike your GI, albeit in a more measured fashion. To avoid GI spikes altogether, avoid all carbs

I meant a proper explanation, something that goes a little bit more in depth.

>carbs giv energy, oink

fucking fatsos, fat people deserve to die

> I spend 89 out of 90 days low/no carb
>carbs are necessary

Really makes me think

>I don't understand biochemistry: the post

>carbs sre unnecessary
>did keto for 9 months
>lost weight
>got fucking ED

I'll keep eating a bit of bread and having boners, thanks.

>doesn't know how to use paint or code

hohoho, who's the dumb guy now?

god damnit I had forgotten about that picture, so many internet fights over it

The calorie is a calorie bullshit I got from Veeky Forums caused multiple diets to fail, but I'm about to hit -20lb with the one I'm on now that is based on eating better foods instead of counting calories. It's also why I recommend against apps like MFP because they have nutrition info for processed garbage, but not home cooking, which encourages people to eat like shit and make less progress than they should.

So "yes they're the same," but actually "no they're not."

Wheat Belly has several chapters on glycemic index (how fast sugar hits bloodstream), but unfortunately fails to really address the concept of glycemic load (how much sugar hits bloodstream). I think The Negative Calorie diet (the one by Dispirito) also addresses GI as one of the factors he considered when choosing foods for the diet. The TL;DR is that foods high in both factors will make you fat, hinder weight loss when you're eating a deficit, wreck your energy/mood, and cause diabetes in the long run.

>Wheat Belly has several chapters on glycemic index (how fast sugar hits bloodstream), but unfortunately fails to really address the concept of glycemic load (how much sugar hits bloodstream). I think The Negative Calorie diet (the one by Dispirito) also addresses GI as one of the factors he considered when choosing foods for the diet. The TL;DR is that foods high in both factors will make you fat, hinder weight loss when you're eating a deficit, wreck your energy/mood, and cause diabetes in the long run.
This is what fat people actually believe.
(no offense)

>Highest GI foods are simple sugars
Wrong, pure refined sugar is medium-GI

carbsanity.blogspot.com/2015/01/thirty-years-of-glycemic-index-dogma.html
carbsanity.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-glycemic-index-it-was-supposed-to.html
carbsanity.blogspot.com/search/label/Glycemic Index

lmao wtf is going on in this picture?

what the fuck is that a Family Video? I didn't know they still existed

Cute girl is piggyback carrying the dude in white shirt and blue shorts. Kid in grey shirt and black shorts is in the background and shit legs seem to be the dude in white's even though they're not.

Calories are a unit of energy, like a joule. In that sense, yes. But obviously all food has different nutrients, so in that sense, no.

>The calorie is a calorie bullshit I got from Veeky Forums caused multiple diets to fail, but I'm about to hit -20lb with the one I'm on now that is based on eating better foods instead of counting calories. It's also why I recommend against apps like MFP because they have nutrition info for processed garbage, but not home cooking, which encourages people to eat like shit and make less progress than they should.

I can't tell if I read a misinformed post, high quality troll, or pure retardation.

CICO works. Period. Its not the principles fault if you don't count the extra shit inbetween meals or eating towards your goal in candy is a good idea.

Of course MFP has shit tons of processed junk listed. It relies mostly on user imputed info which is then based on what gets put on food labels. Stuff like oranges, veggies, etc is going to be tied to what the FDA says on a weighted basis. If you're too stupid to use the recipe feature or count all the ingredients of your home meal in the app, then you deserve your fatness.

How do eat that filth?

>Haha, you're fat! Read my blog

The human body is not a magical machine that processes all the thousands of foods you can put into it with perfect efficiency; if it was then your broscience would be the actual science and I would have lost the weight that I'm taking off now back in 2013 when I listened to idiots like you. High blood sugar spikes cause the body to store fat. Non-caloric compounds like caffeine, spices, and artificial sweeteners change weight gain/loss by affecting factors like metabolism, energy level, and insulin sensitivity. In scientific studies portion controlled diets with identical and even higher calorie intake have resulted in greater weight loss by including foods like almonds and celery or by excluding high GI foods like wheat and potatoes. Yes you can lose weight by logging your all Twinkie diet on MFP if your caloric deficit is big enough, but that doesn't make it a good idea. For the record I rarely snack and always logged the ones I did eat on the failed diets.

Oops
cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(15)00350-2

>by including foods like almonds
Almonds are only ~70-90% digestible unless roasted

>The human body is not a magical machine that processes all the thousands of foods you can put into it with perfect efficiency
General Atwater factors are accurate by +/- 3% for most foods, with whole raw nuts and seeds being exceptions (providing LESS energy), among a few other things (limes, lemons, cabbage, green beans, all providing LESS energy) - but these latter ones are correct with the specific factors that are used in food databases

It isn't breaking news that overweight people fail often fail at counting calories. Even if you teach them in person, they still fail. It's a mysterious thing.

The whole 4 calories per protein, 4 per carb, and 9 per fat are averages. Some foods contain more or less. Granted the amount of variance isn't too large, but it can easily add up throughout a day or week.
This, not to mention the inaccuracy of food labels. The nutritional information is often not entire correct, not to mention that not all packages of food are created equally, yet share the same label. These combined makes CICO really hard if you can swing +-400 calories a day or more, whether trying to lose weight or gain weight.

I used to preach CICO as well. I had no idea how much I didnt know about how the body processes foods. 100 calories of processed sugar, which will be processed almost entirely by the liver since it is literally a toxin, will have a very different effect on your body than 100 calories of lean meat or vegetables. Biochemistry is really fucking complex.

CICO is to food what BMI is to weight. It's easier to tell an entire population to use CICO to control wide-scale obesity. On a large scale, it may work. Just like BMI can give you a rough description of how many fatties are in a nation. Decently strong people are often classified as overweight BMI simply because of their muscle mass, even if they're in great shape. You should never use BMI on an individual level. You would be stupid to use CICO on an individual level either.

How silly. Calories out is largely controlled by macros and food quality. The body does not function the same when fed twinkies vs lean meat and eggs. Weight loss is possible with twinkies but muscle retention will be basically zero and your bodily processes will be insufficiency fuelled. To all people besides anorexics, this concept is fundamentally important.

hows that first week of keto going

plz be bait

>100 calories of processed sugar, which will be processed almost entirely by the liver since it is literally a toxin
lolno

And it isn't some some stroke of genius to understand that carbohydrates, protein and fats are metabolized differently. No shit.
You're just replacing a unit of weight with a unit of energy to make yourself sound more relevant than you are. "100 calories of sugar (= 25 grams) is metabolized differently than 100 calories (=25 grams) of protein" - holy shit this guy knows rudimentary high school physiology

By the way, sugar provides ~5-10% fewer calories than starch.

> You would be stupid to use CICO on an individual level either.
The inaccuracy for almost all foods (exceptions listed in previous foods) is below 3% for the general Atwater factors (which are used in food labeling). For specific factors (used in databases), the inaccuracy is close to 0. The inaccuracy also tends to even out in a mixed diet (animal products tend to be 1-3% above what it says on the label and plant products tend to be 0-3% below). The daily inaccuracy is on the order of 10-60 calories for an adult man consuming an average diet, but evens out towards 0 in the long-term

This nigga telling it as it is

calories are equal in terms of pure CICO, but if you eat 1500 calories of high carb food it will fill you up much less than low carb food, the higher the glycaemic index the worse this effect is. pretty simple. thus the amount of willpower needed to lose/maintain weight goes up and up the more carbs you eat.