It's as simple as calories in vs calories out

>it's as simple as calories in vs calories out

it is that simple. the problem is brainlets thinking that they have any idea what their calories out is, or thinking that CI and CO are independent variables, where in reality the quality and type of foods comprising that CI has a profound effect on the CO side of the equation.

You so desperately yearn to show off how smart you are, yet here I am simply eating less and losing body fat. Stay assmad.

>If I get REALLY emotional about it, then thermodynamics won't apply to me

>projecting this hard

>calories have different properties in different foods

Do you even know what projecting means? He didn't even call the person fat, which would be projecting his own fatness. All he did was say that he was burning fat by counting calories. Are we seriously making another one of these threads?

>muh carbon monoxide

I mean there's more depth to it than just CICO. But if you're not eating junk food and candy, CICO is extremely functional for losing weight and feeling better.

>went from skinnyfat to ottermode by calories reducing and not trainning at all
>"hurr CI CO is fukken billshut guyz"
Don't ever post on Veeky Forums or this chan ever again

Even in diets that attempt to fix hormonal issues a calorie deficit is still key to weight loss.

CICO is literally just stating that basic physics apply to everyone and everything. It is the principle of conservation of energy.

On the calorie IN side we can count pretty accuratly, the OUT side we have to guesstimate a lot. Doesnt make CICO any less true.

Problems with CO side:
>difference in metabolism
>difference in lifestyle
>unabsorbed nutrients that go to shit huehue
>calories needed for repair/recovery

why am i even writing a response to a troll thread? I must be bored.

Why not just eat healthily enough such that you're comfortably full and a deficit is created indirectly though. Seems to be working well for me

That's what keto attempts to do but a lot of dumbasses think it means you're allowed to eat bacon and peanut butter for every meal while snacking on hunks of cheese and almonds between meals. Personally I've lost 58 lbs since mid-November on keto and it's because if I wanted to do it right i had to prep my own meals and cut the processed garbage. From that I transitioned into OMAD and extended fasting since I felt satiated enough to cut my caloric intake drastically. So the metabolic and hormonal side of things helps to keep me from feeling hungry especially during fasting periods and the good food actually keeps my body running efficiently while making the lifestyle easy to stick to since I'm eating better than I ever was before.

I'm absolutely positive different diet protocols can give you similar results but this is working wonders for me. But like we've both said it all serves to get the calories down and stay in a deficit.

>b-but it isn’t as simple as calories in calories out..

wait
isn't that called fiber or something

Stop using words you don't understand you fucking moron.

500 kcal of sugar =/= 500 kcal of lettuce

this might be the most retarded post of all time

its not entirely true (the human body is not a calorimeter), but it does accurately predict results, so you should still follow it.
Just make some changes in what you eat, not how much you eat if your body doesn't work as intended

Why not just do this with actual healthy food and not make yourself ill or starve though. None of this meme shit to mask starvation...

...

no shit nigger. in terms of nutrition for your body, they're completely different and obviously the lettuce is better. but in terms of weight lloss, they're exactly the saem. FUFCLK

If you're going to go on a diatribe about cholesterol and sodium being bad while whole grains and fruit are the only true healthy way to eat I'm just going to not bother listening because I've heard it before.

>eat 3k cal in bananas
>the fiber causes you to skip half of those calories

woops?

there's literally proof of this, that freelee the banana girl on youtube eats like 3-4k cals in bananas and other vegan garbage and is still underweight

doesn't quite work that way, but fibre + dietary thermogenesis do make a very good case for whole food plant based in terms of effortless weight loss

the point being... CICO BTFO

Calories in isn't decided by eating, it's decided by how yoru body processes it and genetics etc, so a 300 cal meal going "in" might only be worth 210 cal.. totally not plausible to measure this unless you're eating totally whole food which is fibre free such as quality meat.

>consuming 100 calories of soda is the same as 100 calories of chicken breast
Fuck off you reductionist retards. You’re acting like quality of food isn’t a factor. You’re using an 80+ year old model of diet.

When in doubt, everything is nuanced. If you have a black and white simple answer to something, you should shut up because you sound stupid. Youve exposed yourself as someone who gets their info from reddit post headlines.

yeah I suppose you have a point about expenditure in terms of how much more energy it takes to digest real food

>fiber
>calories

i simply cannot express how dumb you are

light fiber on fire
boom, it make energy

this user is correct to an extent. Foods with high fiber digest more slowly and shock your insulin system less, that's why fruit is better for you than juice or why whole grains are better than more refined.

I would just like to add that i too have no idea what im doing

Just tryina eat less and lose weight brah

...

Fiber doesn’t have calories retard

It is

>eating 300 calories of table sugar is the same as 300 calories of broccoli

for weight it is

The human body can’t digest cellulose, so it doesn’t have calories

you'll weigh less if you eat to satiation on brocolli vs eating to satiation on sugar. Obviously...

calories are a measure of heat energy
if you light fiber on fire, it produces heat
therefore it has calories, just not the kind of calories the human body can use
if you're going to spamming slowjaks, don't be surprised when you get met with pedantic autism

>calories exist on a spectrum
kys

no it's not. one of these you will WANT to eat a lot of because of factors such as taste and processing refinement. the other you won't want to eat more than a cup full of (roughly 75 calories). the main point is that some foods are stimulatory to your appetite and some are inhibitory - people you see that are obese repeatedly go out and buy an "extra value meal", try to eat just a little, and wonder why they never lose weight.

and that's not even including the nutrients of each.

he said 300 of each brainlet

This is the result of American education.

I'm not american

>life exists in a vacuum
things happen after those calories

this is the result of american education

It’s not just calories you idiot, it’s about nutritional value. You can’t live on soda and s’mores and say you have a good diet just because you’re hitting the proper amount of calories

This. The rest of the thread is full of one-dimensional brainlets trying to isolate a single factor

Calories in vs calories out is about losing/gaining weight, nothing more.

It literally is that simple. Let me guess, you're a buttblasted fatty who thinks "he only eats a little bit of food, but still doesn't lose weight."

Count you're calories for one day and you'll see you're a gluttonous slob.

Not even that - just losing.

If you eat 1500 kcals' worth of vegetables vs. 1500 kcals of pure sugar, while you burn through 2000 kcal a day, there's no way in hell you'll gain fat, the energy has to come from somewhere. Now, you might not keep losing fat, either due to burning muscle for energy, a drop in activity, or thermogenesis, but that's another story. Even if you get 100% of the reported kcal from sugar and only 75% from veg, this holds true.

If you eat 2500 kcal and expend 2000, shit gets more complex. There's often an increase in general fidgetiness, some reports that protein pretty much passes through if overfed, refeeding anorexics get hypermetabolic and start playing human space heater and other such confounding factors.

>If you eat 2500 kcal and expend 2000, shit gets more complex. There's often an increase in general fidgetiness, some reports that protein pretty much passes through if overfed, refeeding anorexics get hypermetabolic and start playing human space heater and other such confounding factors.
It's still calories in vs calories out.That fidgetiness or thermogenesis are part of your calories out, you're still at a 500 kcal surplus in that scenario. You cannot starve to death eating on a surplus. You will gain weight if you eat enough.

>implying all fiber is cellulose
pic related, retard

not american
foods with fiber are harder to digest therefore dont have the same caloric outcome

Problems with CI side:
>different cooking methods that affect the caloric content
>nutritional labels are based on averages, actual values will vary
>finding accurate nutritional information
>measurement error

Please dont use terms you dont understand such as independent variables.
What you said is correct. Your terminology just triggers me as a mathfag. Im a faggot I know