Cal in cal out debunked?

now they are saying it is kg in kg out, does this make any sense?

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 26K)

The problem isn't how much you eat, the problem is what your body does with it. If you have, say, really bad diarrhea, you will not gain weight even if you eat 3 cakes at once, you'll just shit it out.

The problem is gut flora. Which is caused by a wrong diet, which is caused by eating foods that individually are not goot for your body. So, basically, the whole obesity problem is caused by (((healthy eating))).


>According to the latest government figures, Americans consume 3.55 kg (125 ounces) of food and beverages every day.
These are the people on Veeky Forums that give out diet and exercise tips. They eat over 3 kg of food every day.


Does guy flora affect how you lose weight majorly then? I'm not familiar with this.

Gut flora affects EVERYTHING.

No, not trolling. Even your character, basically, what you are, is controlled by microbes in your gut to some extent. You can look it up.

Sadly, we have no way of fixing gut flora other than literally eating the shit of healthy people (stool transplant). Again, not trolling, not kidding, look it up.

Yes. Get a stool transplant from some skinny dude and you will lose weight, doesn't matter what else you do. It's a bit horrifying, really.

Or get a stool transplant from a fat person and you will become fat, it works that way, too.

I currently have hypothyroidism (medicated) and I've been trying to lose weight for 6 months on 1600 calories each day, could this be the reason why I'm having difficulty in losing weight?


But then again, no one really knows. I run a pretty harsh deficit, I have Hashimoto's, and I actually gain weight. Because of that, I started to flex my research muscles and it turns out that all caloric values are just bullshit. No one knows what your body makes of the calories, no one knows how much you, individually shit out, if you can digest fibre (many people can, fibre can actually turn into short-estered fatty acids in the gut).

As usual, it's just a big dog and pony show, all smokes and mirrors. The only way is trying out which foods make you gain weight and which make you lose weight. Again, that is individually different, so some people think low fat is awesome, while others say it must be keto and others say go vegan or go home.

And that is the current state of science, by the way. Not any tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. Of course, most laymen (ie. Veeky Forums and reddit) don't know shit.

>Fachgruppe "Lebensmittelchemie und gerichtliche Chemie"; Schriftenreihe Lebensmittelchemie, Lebensmittelqualität Band 15; Behr’s Verlag, Hamburg 1989
>Pollmer U et al: Prost Mahlzeit! Krank durch gesunde Ernährung. Kiepenheuer & Witsch, Köln 2002
>Hargrove JL: History of the calorie in nutrition. Journal of Nutrition 2006/136/S.2957-2961

Holy shit we went full retard. Fat loss is fucking simple, calories in vs calories out does work, fat loss is stupid predictable if people were actually honest about intake, weight andeasure everything and you can predict very closely the loss/gain you will get

>Fat loss is fucking simple, calories in vs calories out does work, fat loss is stupid predictable if people were actually honest about intake, weight andeasure everything and you can predict very closely the loss/gain you will get
t. fattest country in the world

Calories in, calories out is still valid. The "out" portition is off, if you gain weight on a supposed deficit diet.

fake news

This is the biggest non article ever

>Fat isn't realeased as energy
>The actual atoms aren't destroyed

Nice pedantry but the answer is still reduce the energy intake and increase energy output

Is the BRAPP DIET the way in 2018?

breathe really fast so you expel more CO2 and therefore release more mass

you dont have to eat the shit you just have to dilute it and make an enema of it
long lifestyle changes become more and more permanent with time because as you change the stuff you put inside you your gut flora will also adapt, eat trash and you will feed bacteria that like you eating trash and they have a surprising ammount of impact on your health

Dunno, since starting to go to the gym and counting macros I've lost weight and best part is I haven't even felt hungry.

I guess people will now tell me that I will hit a wall and I'm cool with that, but this is first time in my life when loosing weight hasn't caused me angst.

Just to put this out there I tried the snakeman fast, but I couldn't keep it up for more than few days before hunger got the best of me. Then I tried OMAD, which I know is sin on /fast/ and that worked out better, but weekends were unmanagable since I had so much spare time to dwell in hunger. That being said back then I only went to gym 3 times a week for what its worth.

>"More realistically, going for a walk triples your metabolic rate, and so will cooking, vacuuming and sweeping."

Well, THAT article is written for women.

>”dieting is fatphobia and you’re fat purely because of genetics”

Attached: 0823951E-BAFB-4D98-B669-68D77E63BF1C.jpg (1668x1636, 126K)

Yeah, it doesn't really change anything on a practical level. It's literally the same concept, just with a more in depth description of the actual science behind it.

How about you try drinking 1kg of olive oil and let us know how it turns out for you, you fucking retard

Sorry but are you from a civilized country where there is at least compulsory middle school attendance? Because the textual comprehension of the article is not that difficult, a 12yo would be able to produce a correct summary.

Attached: tizia magna.jpg (980x1306, 241K)

>Sadly, we have no way of fixing gut flora other than literally eating the shit of healthy people (stool transplant). Again, not trolling, not kidding, look it up.
dead wrong

>its impossible to know the exact amount of calories your individual body can absorb from every source therefore thermodynamics btfo
Or you could adjust your ESTIMATED caloric intake until you are gaining/losing weight at the desired speed, you fat idiot.

>by Ruben Meerman

should I even bother reading that shit

Calories in v calories out is BS. I used to run 30-50 miles a week and my weight loss was shit because I ate 4 pieces of bread a day like a retard.

Now, I lift weights (moderately) and run (30mins max), but go low carb high fat, and my weight loss is effortless.

Those flipping miles I ran for nothing. Thousands of them, for a crappy calories in v out solution.

Dieting works, but obesity is 0.7 genetic. That is, genetic heritability of a persons metabolic rate is 70% genetically determined. Don’t become the opposite retard of CNN

>I'm fat because of genetics and not because i have an unhealthy relationship with food

Attached: and-this-is-where-i-keep-my-genetics-fat-lady-fridge-full-of-coke-sweets.jpg (735x491, 96K)

1 liter of water is 1kg, so I probably drink most of that in water on heavy days, because I sweat a shitload. That's such a stupid figure to look at.

CICO is true to some degree, however:
1. Metabolism, considering high protein diets isn't quite well understood
2. Body is not a closed physical system


liquids dont weight in kg they are weighted in liters you fucking retard

>we have no way of fixing gut flora other than literally eating the shit of healthy people (stool transplant). Again, not trolling, not kidding, look it up.

dude, you should be the one looking it up
check your sources, stool transplants are 2012 material

>drinking a gallon of water will make you fat because its over 3kg

Funny, but also the most disengenuous straw man. Showing a far person with a bad diet - clever. The genetic heritability just means that for some unlucky people being in good shape is harder.

CICO isn't bullshit. Your mistake was torturing your body by being an impatient retard about weight loss and developed metabolic adaptation/metabolic damage. Google it.

kill yourself, CICO is truth

>metabolic damage
this meme is still around lol

Interesting stuff. It doesn’t mean CICO is BS - as you said - but it it’s a much more nuanced than typically stated. Since, intuitively a large deficit on the out side should be preferable. It becomes CICO, in certain parameters

if it's a meme, explain how is it possible that when reverse dieting (slowly increasing calories up until maintenance) people start losing weight faster

>drinks a hogshead of water a day

Your body stops freaking out that it doesn't have enough food, so it ramps up metabolism, but more than the additional calories. The sweet spot is where metabolism is ramped up but calories are still a net deficit. Therefore, weight loss.

sorry if you're not the same guy, but if you are:

>metabolic adaptation is a meme
>your body stops freaking out that it doesn't have enough food, so it ramps up metabolism

And yeah, agreed on the sweet spot. Pretty sure that's exactly why it's better to make a moderate deficit rather than just starve yourself because impatient

Spot on. Gut flora regulates everything. That's why greek yogurt and its probiotic friends are GOAT food.

Try drinking it for 2 weeks with every meal and you'll notice significant differences in mood and digestion.

Not the same guy. It's not a meme. We've got a million years of evolution to prove this shit. And evolution moves slowly enough that your fat ass on the couch doesn't know that you're NOT running from lions on the savannah every day 70000 years ago. So treat it like you are.

No credible doctor is going to use fecal transplants to cure obesity in the next decade. Intestinal flora also causes colon cancer. Diet changes flora concentrations, which can prevent obesity.

They will once the truth starts to set in. We have dieted for 50 years now - which turned us into the fattest nation on Earth. Then, there's also the fact that fat people eat less calories than thin people, which has been shown regularly since the 60s. That's why "underreporting" meme was invented. Too much money in all this shit.

>Then, there's also the fact that fat people eat less calories than thin people, which has been shown regularly since the 60s

Attached: bRITPolice.gif (348x372, 1.61M)

Just because we can't exactly measure calories out does not mean that CICO is wrong. It just means we can't measure it beforehand.

Wow that article is retarded. The whole thing is premised on a niggling point of chemistry that makes absolutely no difference when considering the final result.

>Fat doesn't get converted to energy
>Ackschually what happens is...

Whether ameritards believe it's "converted to energy" or metabolized or carved out by miniature angels, wtf is the difference?

You're right.
But that means that our approach of CICO is absolutely wrong.

We are not perfect machines, at all. This means that simply focusing on CICO is fundamentally correct but overall it's wrong.

It's mostly pushed by people who want a simple answer to everything that anyone will ask about this fairly complex subject and to not think to hard.
It's the "just be yourself" of dieting.

People use calories differently and certain calories will have certain effects on their body meaning that they'll have to be more aware of WHAT they put into their bodies and more importantly HOW OFTEN the put those things into their body.
Meal timing and frequency is as if not more important then simply eating less.

Also, the people who push CICO hardest when it comes to dieting is the food industry. They want a simple easy answer that let's food addicts and casual food abusers keep on keeping on.

>carved out by miniature angels


Get off this site and take your capslock and expectation of Veeky Forums to be full of people willing to draw stupid bullshit.

>what is fasting
>what is raw food diets
No need for fecal transplants

I've recently done this, starting dieting at 800 cals per day, now I'm eating ~1000 - ~1300 depending on the day, once a week I eat ~1500, and I'm losing fat much more quickly. I'm going down about 2lbs per week. Current weight is 171lb, down from 186lb. I started my diet on Feb 10.

That's because we've been eating "heart healthy full-grains" as the base of our shit-tier food pyramid.

nice progress user. However, unless your maintenance is incredibly low, I'd suggest eventually reverse dieting up to maintenance, maybe 100 - 200 calories higher (add those extra slowly), and then cut again at a higher deficit (like 1500/day).

if anyone thinks you can eat 1800 cals of pure sugar and lose the same amount of weight (if at all) as if you ate 1800 cals worth of broccoli they're retarded.

Overfunction and you can achieve skeleton mode.
Underfunction and you gain too fast fat.
I hate my life

Don't forget, too, that it's net calories that matter. It's said that about 1300 calories of food a day is the minimum to get all your basic nutrients. So, if you can't cut food any more, do a bit of cardio. Half an hour on a stationary bike can give you another 150-200 calories or so, or more if you bust your ass until you can't breathe.

>>the forums with real pictures of thousands of people's real progress are wrong
I know Veeky Forums is memes, but bb.coms forums actually have proof cico works

they lie

>unlucky people being in good shape is harder.
but not impossible, therefore irrelevant.

>implying cico isn't based off your bodies response to foods
Even if you use a different metric to count food than calories the same principles apply: count food and you know how much to reduce it to lose weight
Unless you're implying you can't lose weight at a deficit. Then your e retarded
>there are different types of calories
Sorry you don't want to make it bitch boi

>there's also the fact that fat people eat less calories than thin people

Attached: 1521929992973.jpg (364x336, 25K)