On Calories or Why You're Fucking Dumb

The following is taken verbatim from "The poor, misunderstood calorie"

"Our body burns food more or less efficiently depending depending on a multitude of factors. In other words, we may get more or less calories from the same food eaten at different times

...

when a food company reports the caloric content of a particular food product, THE CALORIES FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL COMPONENT IN THAT FOOD ARE SIMPLY ADDED TOGETHER; THEY DON'T MEASURE THE CALORIES DIRECTLY, BUT RATHER ESTIMATE THEM FROM THE INGREDIENT LIST (emphasis added by OP)

...

Electrocuting a slice of bread might yield 85-95 kcal when put through a bomb calorimeter, but it might yield 75-105 kcal to your body."

Scale up to 2000 kcal and the margin of error becomes 600 kcal.

CONT.

That's why eating 'till satiation is far far far better than counting calories.

>But I always overeat

Then find foods that don't cuck leptin aka meats and fats.

What a tragedy

No one claims that it is easy to calculate. Eating until full works well for some people but not others. If it doesnt work for you, counting calories and figure out what causes long term weight change works for everyone. Its not easy but it will work.

>If it doesnt work for you, counting calories and figure out what causes long term weight change works for everyone. Its not easy but it will work.

It doesn't work because most high-carb life diets cuck leptin.

I can overeat on buffalo spice flavored chips until my tummy is literally full.

I cannot overeat bacon (on a high-fat high-protein) diet. Leptin does its job and you literally can't eat anymore. Even if your stomach has plenty of space.

why the fuck is the formatting of your post so retarded?

>That's why eating 'till satiation is far far far better than counting calories.
you're wrong, your body may only digest 100 kcal out of 120 kcal but at least you have a number that you can track, if it's off and you'll know from the scale over time then you can adjust accordingly
where as you're suggesting just eat however much you want with no way of tracking
imagine going to a gym, no scales, weights are all the exact same size but different weights and you lift
you lift what you believe is heavy and keep going, many months later you wonder how you've progressed, there are no numbers or ways to track it besides how you feel

Reddit.

>posts that add nothing to the site
>posts that literally show your underage through your stupid back2reddit garbage attitude
i have no doubt the majority of "back2rebbit" posters have been on this site for less than 6 months, has no friends, and thinks Veeky Forums is some kind of secret club that will validate their stupid useless personalities

>I cannot overeat bacon
t. skeleton

>actually caring about calories or how much you weigh
lmao just use the mirror and how you feel you fucking retards

t. blaha's doppelganger

t. plebbit retard that's only been lifting for 6 months

>Electrocuting a slice of bread might yield 85-95 kcal when put through a bomb calorimeter, but it might yield 75-105 kcal to your body
t. retard who doesn't understand chemistry

you use your big boy brain to come up with that one?

>

calorie counting has literally let me loose 6kg's in a month soooooooo? is this good or bad? I consider calorie counting to be a godsend. plus im doing IF between 10am - 6pm. t.fattie

how do you get more chemical energy from food than what's in it? i can understand less, but more? is this a not too elaborate troll?

Thermic effect. Body uses protein for other functions than storage (gluconeogenesis and protein synthesis). Fat, in the context of a low-carb high-fat high-protein diet, gets used up for premium brain food. Infants get the same thing when they drink breast milk. Calories from protein are "worth less" as a result.

Funny enough, Mr. Lagakos has a Ph.D. in Nutritional Biochemestry.

I'm 6'2" and 240 with 15% bf.

The mirror is far better. You only know when a certain caloric regime is working if you see weight being lost. You can't predict shit from looking at a fucking inaccurate number.

>Thermic effect. Body uses protein for other functions than storage (gluconeogenesis and protein synthesis). Fat, in the context of a low-carb high-fat high-protein diet, gets used up for premium brain food. Infants get the same thing when they drink breast milk. Calories from protein are "worth less" as a result.
How is this a response to my question?

If you're eating less and with different/better macros, than calorie counting is working for you. If it truly works for you, why fix it?

And your IF makes a huge difference in comparison to someone who doesn't let their body get into a fasted state. The only reason why I'm shilling this shit is because from personal experience, it's a fucking miracle when you try to eat a piece of bacon and CAN'T. Not because my tummy is stuffed but because I feel satisfied.

?

Calorimetry is inaccurate and there are ranges of error. You're not magically "burning more energy", you're adjusting for the significant range of error in caloric measurements,

>there are no numbers or ways to track it besides how you feel

Well you can also visually see the weights. And I wish more lifters (casual at least) would pay attention to how they feel. These chucklefucks obsess over a number. Instead of looking at the weight visually and going up to the most blocks that one can do in proper form to failure. Not to mention that these idiots are trying to go hyperfast and cruise on momentum and gravity. As opposed to feeling control and maintaining it.

>Mr. Lagakos has a Ph.D. in Nutritional Biochemestry
And you have people with PhDs in physics and the like endorsing shit like "The Secret". Calculating the calories in a slice of bread using, for instance, a bomb calorimeter gives an absolute value for that sample, not a range. If the caloric value of a slice of bread established in this fashion is 100 calories, you cannot get 110 calories out of it.

>If the caloric value of a slice of bread established in this fashion is 100 calories, you cannot get 110 calories out of it.

We don't burn calories like a bomb calorimeter.
>And you have people with PhDs in physics and the like endorsing shit like "The Secret".

But it's not like endorsing the secret. Those people are going outside their domains in doing such things. I don't see how nutrition advice,based on how the body breaks down different materials, from a nutritional biochemist is anywhere near equivalent.

The equivalent for the physicist would be something like "Role of Strange Quarks in Ionic Formation of Atoms".

> oldfag gets buttblasted

WELP. Guess I'll have to -600 calories to my diet then. As if it weren't hard enough losing weight with my various food allergies already.

>>If the caloric value of a slice of bread established in this fashion is 100 calories, you cannot get 110 calories out of it.
>We don't burn calories like a bomb calorimeter.
You're right, we are less efficient. The idea of getting more calories than in a calorimeter is pants-on-head level stupid

Nigger I could eat bacon until it comes out my fucking ears and still want more. Get the fuck outta here with your broscience 'leptin' shit.

t. braindead fatass

t. i have no articles or science so this is my argument

Yeah you're actually kinda mega retarded dude. The human body isn't gonna absorb more energy from food than a bomb calorimeter. Assume that that value is 100% yield of the energy in the bread. Can't absorb more than what it has to give

God you're fucking dumb. Calorimeters are shitty measurements of food because more energy is released from combustion than your body extracts. This is why bomb calorimeters are no longer used to measure food calories. This is why your example is retarded, bomb calorimeter measurements will always be way higher than the calories your body gets because it's a more total oxidation.

Adding macronutrients is the modern standard for measuring food calories because it's actually representative of how your body uses the food. We know on a chemical level how much energy your body extracts from each macronutrient. They don't estimate from the food components list, they measure the macronutrient content.

As for variance in the efficiency of the human body to convert food to calories, what do you think is the actual swing in that over a short time period? Not a lot.

>Electrocuting a slice of bread might yield 85-95 kcal when put through a bomb calorimeter, but it might yield 75-105 kcal to your body."
>Scale up to 2000 kcal and the margin of error becomes 600 kcal.
>85-95 kcal but actually could be 75-105kcal
Okay so measuring isnt prefect
>scale to 2009kcal and error becomes 600kcal
Nigga what the fuck kinda math is this?
Your example pretty much says there is a +/-10% error and somehow you get a 30% error in your scale up? How retarded are you?