Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum ยป "Calories In, Calories Out" is a gross over-simplification. Stop preaching that B.S.
  1. Results 91 to 120 of 149
  2. Page 4 of 5
  3. First
  5. 2
  6. 3
  7. 4
  8. 5
  10. Last

Thread: "Calories In, Calories Out" is a gross over-simplification. Stop preaching that B.S.

post 1551291431 05-11-2018, 07:58 AM
-
#91
  1. AWillis
  2. Social Media Influencer
  1. AWillis
  2. Social Media Influencer
  3. Join Date: Jun 2012
  4. Location: Trump Towers
  5. Height: 6'0"
  6. Weight: 175 lbs
  7. Posts: 40,382
  8. Subscribers: 4
  9. Rep Power: 197859
why do the broscientists say a pound of human fat is 3500 calories? pretty sure some autist plucked this number out of thin air back in the 50s or earlier

a pound of lard, or a pound coconut oil which arepure fatare circa2000 calories?

let alone... human fat is not 100% oil like the above. so lol @ thinking you got to burn 3500 calories to lose a pound.

anyone got the answer to this?
Cobra Kai Crew

srs
post 1551291871 05-11-2018, 08:05 AM
-
#92
  1. pojo18
  2. Registered User
  1. pojo18
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Oct 2008
  4. Location: Joppa, Maryland, United States
  5. Posts: 5,331
  6. Rep Power: 12655
I think the better question OP is how do you fit an average of 4700 posts yearly on these forums into a successful lifestyle lol?
Reps to all BJJ/grappling/MMA bros.
post 1551292141 05-11-2018, 08:08 AM
-
#93
  1. SkinnyBeast24
  2. From Bones to Brawn
  1. SkinnyBeast24
  2. From Bones to Brawn
  3. Join Date: Jun 2011
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 36
  6. Posts: 33,318
  7. Rep Power: 77102
Originally Posted By pojo18⏩
I think the better question OP is how do you fit an average of 4700 posts yearly on these forums into a successful lifestyle lol?
Work a soul crushing 9-5 job for 3 years from 22-25 and you'll be amazed at what you can accomplish online.
Bench 315x1 - Squat 415x1 - Deadlift 515x1 Total = 1,245

3/4/5 Club as of 8-23-2019. Feels good man.

M.S. Exercise Science (2018)
Certified by: NSCA C.S.C.S, NASM-CPT

6'5 Manmore, 230 pounds, 15% body-fat (Bod Pod tested)

COLTS (football) - Lakers (LeGOAT) - Indians (Baseball) - Uconn Huskies (college) - USA Soccer
post 1551292581 05-11-2018, 08:15 AM
-
#94
  1. kcadrenalin
  2. Permanent Vacation
  1. kcadrenalin
  2. Permanent Vacation
  3. Join Date: Jun 2007
  4. Posts: 24,727
  5. Rep Power: 349124
Originally Posted By PenorBrahNoHomo⏩
Most people are dim and require gross oversimplifications.
Most people also grossly underestimate calories in. When someone tells me they have been on a 1500 calorie a day diet but just cant lose weight, I immediately assume they are eating twice that.
________

MFC

________
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin
Tits and Beer
post 1551292631 05-11-2018, 08:16 AM
-
#95
  1. Ralys
  2. tours over boyo
  1. Ralys
  2. tours over boyo
  3. Join Date: May 2013
  4. Posts: 981
  5. Rep Power: 11900
Originally Posted By AWillis⏩
why do the broscientists say a pound of human fat is 3500 calories? pretty sure some autist plucked this number out of thin air back in the 50s or earlier

a pound of lard, or a pound coconut oil which arepure fatare circa2000 calories?

let alone... human fat is not 100% oil like the above. so lol @ thinking you got to burn 3500 calories to lose a pound.

anyone got the answer to this?
9 calories per gram of fat, 28 grams per ounce, 16 ounces per pound=4032 calories

so fuk man idk lol
post 1551292931 05-11-2018, 08:21 AM
-
#96
  1. nosirrahx
  2. Registered User
  1. nosirrahx
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2013
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 51
  6. Posts: 14,623
  7. Rep Power: 106507
As someone that has lost well over 100lbs I can tell you that CICO starts off being the entire equation but things get more and more complicated the more weight you lose.

I know men that lost more weight than I did that look f-ing terrible compared to me, like women covered in lose skin.

At the point I am at now I am doing IF with jacked up protein and spending a lot of time hitting the weights and cardio.

I have maintained 1 inch lost per month off my waist since November but have lost 0 inches off my arms.

Protein intake paired with exercise induced deficit wont matter at all in the beginning but if you start early and keep it up it makes a massive difference towards the end.
Eat in a deficit to lose weight.
Hit your protein and fat minimums to stay healthy and keep your gainz.
Lift heavy and do HIIT to look and feel awesome.
Use the internet to learn why you should do these things and how to do these things.
post 1551293221 05-11-2018, 08:25 AM
-
#97
  1. cobhc
  2. Structural Engineer Brah
  1. cobhc
  2. Structural Engineer Brah
  3. Join Date: Dec 2010
  4. Location: Brooklyn, New York, United States
  5. Posts: 44,106
  6. Rep Power: 281429
It depends on what answer you're looking for.

Your body requires x amount of energy per day, depending on activity.

If you input less energy into your body than what is required, then your body must seek energy elsewhere.

The physics of it can't be argued no matter what article you find on tumblr or ivillage.

That being said, the energy you put into your body most definitely has a far more complex process behind the scenes that can have a variety of benefits or lack thereof.
NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS
RED BULL RACING
post 1551294361 05-11-2018, 08:40 AM
-
#98
  1. JUSA
  2. No Agony, No Bragony
  1. JUSA
  2. No Agony, No Bragony
  3. Join Date: Nov 2004
  4. Location: Texas
  5. Posts: 50,517
  6. Rep Power: 458793
Originally Posted By SkinnyBeast24⏩
well clearly not since lots of morono-miscers preaching calories in calories out here

https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showt...hp?t=175742521
The calsin-calsout is not inherently wrong, it's just simplistic and missing a big part of the equation.

Also, it's unreliable.

1. We use 3,500 as the number of calories needed to burn a pound of fat, but every person is actually different, I forget the meat behind it, but it boils down to some people metabolizing fat more efficiently than others. Some people can burn a pound of fat expending 2,900 calories of energy, for others it might be almost 4,000.

2. Most of us don't weigh our own food on a scale and cook everything we eat by hand. Never mind the way you cook things can effect it's caloric content, but if you rely on labels at all, they're off anywhere from 10% to 100%. That 90-calorie breakfast bar might actually be 180 (in the worst examples) but is likely 80-120 actual calories. Have fun counting.

3. As you stated, not every calorie is born the same. Protein takes more energy to simply break down, vs fat or whatnot.

4. Your base metabolism isn't a static number either. If you're making $150,000 a year, your expenses might be $100,000 (on your home, car, food, girls, whatever). If you lose your job and are now making $50,000 from unemployment -- are you spending the same amount eating out at every night? No, and your body doesn't work like that either. If you cut calories back, your metabolism changes along with it.

... so not only can you not count how many calories you're taking in, even if you could accurately, you don't know exactly how much is needed to burn fat and even if you figured that out, your calories out is going to change from day to day, anyway.

... and none of that addresses the effect foods can have on Insulin, cortisol, ghrelin, leptin and other powerful hormones that have just as much to do with gaining weight/fat/muscle as your calories.

Take these examples: Boys and Girls, prior to puberty, have body masses that are surprisingly similar. Boys aren't that much more muscular, their bodyfat percentages are (on average) much closer than you'd think, they are pretty close. Then puberty happens. Boys put on massive amounts of muscle (and bodyhair and other ****). Girls gain massive amounts of fats, particularly in their breasts, hips and such.

Why is that? Even asking is stupid, because we all know the answer, yet for some reason this answer (HORMONES, specifically here test and estrogen), we don't consider it with adults trying to gain muscle or lose weight. Now? **** hormones, it's only calories?

How about that adult athlete. Let's say they take massive amounts of a t-hormone. They're putting on muscle regardless and they're probably losing fat regardless. It doesn't hardly even matter what they eat (although, eating smarter/better will help).

Hormones. They're powerful. All of them. Insulin, insulin-like growth factor, cortisol, leptin, ghrelin, many others. Your diet can effect them, far beyond just the # of calories.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

- Arthur Schopenhauer
post 1551294691 05-11-2018, 08:45 AM
-
#99
  1. cobhc
  2. Structural Engineer Brah
  1. cobhc
  2. Structural Engineer Brah
  3. Join Date: Dec 2010
  4. Location: Brooklyn, New York, United States
  5. Posts: 44,106
  6. Rep Power: 281429
Originally Posted By JUSA⏩
3. As you stated, not every calorie is born the same. Protein takes more energy to simply break down, vs fat or whatnot.
I don't think you understand what a calorie is.

A unit of thermal energy is equal to a unit of thermal energy.

1 g of protein provides 4 calories
1 g of carbs provides 4 calories
1 g of fat provides 9 calories

There's nothing more that goes into it at this depth of discussion.
NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS
RED BULL RACING
post 1551300801 05-11-2018, 10:05 AM
-
#100
  1. JUSA
  2. No Agony, No Bragony
  1. JUSA
  2. No Agony, No Bragony
  3. Join Date: Nov 2004
  4. Location: Texas
  5. Posts: 50,517
  6. Rep Power: 458793
Originally Posted By cobhc⏩
I don't think you understand what a calorie is.

A unit of thermal energy is equal to a unit of thermal energy.

1 g of protein provides 4 calories
1 g of carbs provides 4 calories
1 g of fat provides 9 calories

There's nothing more that goes into it at this depth of discussion.
You don't seem to understand.

A gram of protein provides 4 calories of energy. 1 calorie of that is spent by your body breaking it down and using it, meaning it increases your daily calories-out by 1.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

- Arthur Schopenhauer
post 1551301441 05-11-2018, 10:15 AM
-
#101
  1. nzgs
  2. who is john galt?
  1. nzgs
  2. who is john galt?
  3. Join Date: Nov 2008
  4. Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Posts: 14,238
  6. Rep Power: 17400
It's not an over-simplification. It's just that people underestimate the complexity of the calories out side of the equation and that what you eat (quality and quantity) affects how much energy you expend.
post 1551301801 05-11-2018, 10:21 AM
-
#102
  1. cobhc
  2. Structural Engineer Brah
  1. cobhc
  2. Structural Engineer Brah
  3. Join Date: Dec 2010
  4. Location: Brooklyn, New York, United States
  5. Posts: 44,106
  6. Rep Power: 281429
Originally Posted By JUSA⏩
You don't seem to understand.

A gram of protein provides 4 calories of energy. 1 calorie of that is spent by your body breaking it down and using it, meaning it increases your daily calories-out by 1.
I understand how it works but you just stated that not every calorie is the same. It's a defined unit of energy..... One unit = One unit.

You're confusing yourself by over complicating this. Your body needs x amount of energy per day to survive which includes metabolizing different foods, maintaining body temperature, etc... No one here is debating that the latter varies.

The point is, you'll never win against physics no matter how abstract your analysis gets. If less energy goes into your body than that which is required, your body will look elsewhere.

4 Calories from 1 g of Protein is exactly the same amount of energy as 4 Calories from 1 g of Carbohydrates.

It's really not difficult to understand.

Your argument is akin to telling me that two engines producing exactly 500 hp at the crank do not produce the same power because the displacement is different. They are different engines with inherent differences but they still produce the same power.
NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS
RED BULL RACING
post 1551301871 05-11-2018, 10:22 AM
-
#103
  1. Agentdark45
  2. Thick. Solid. Tight.
  1. Agentdark45
  2. Thick. Solid. Tight.
  3. Join Date: Jun 2008
  4. Location: London, Boyo, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Posts: 10,822
  6. Rep Power: 28099
Did not fukking read.

40/40/20 split of protein/carbs/fat @ 3000kcals will have THE same effect on your body regardless of what form you consume them in.

I assume this is what the OP was talking about, because anyone arguing that macro breakdown doesn't matter is an idiot. i.e 3000kcals of fat = the same as 3000kcal of protein - you'd have to be a retard to argue this was correct.
โ˜†โ˜†โ˜†Jaden Smith school of experimental philosophy and existentialism crewโ˜†โ˜†โ˜†
โ˜†โ˜†โ˜†UK crewโ˜†โ˜†โ˜†
โ˜†โ˜†โ˜†Poverty meal crewโ˜†โ˜†โ˜†
โ˜†โ˜†โ˜†CEO crewโ˜†โ˜†โ˜†

Stats: 5'10"
Weight: 185lbs
post 1551303101 05-11-2018, 10:39 AM
-
#104
  1. SkinnyBeast24
  2. From Bones to Brawn
  1. SkinnyBeast24
  2. From Bones to Brawn
  3. Join Date: Jun 2011
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 36
  6. Posts: 33,318
  7. Rep Power: 77102
Most people believe that the increased calorie intake is driving the weight gain.

But what if we've got things backwards and the fat gain drives the increased calorie intake?

When a teenage boy grows rapidly in height, he eats more calories than he expends. Instead of turning into fat, the calories are used to build muscle, bones, skin and organs.

It is not the increased calorie intake that is driving the growth, but hormones, growth factors and physiological processes that are causing the growth and the growth drives the increased calorie intake. That makes sense, right?

What if obesity is similar? What if calories are a consequences of the weight gain, not a cause?

In the same way that a teenage boy's muscles and bones grow because of hormones, an obese person's fat mass may be growing because of hormones.

One example of this is drugs like some antidepressants and birth control pills, which often have weight gain as a side effect.

There are no calories in these pills, but they alter the physiology of the body (brain and hormones) to cause weight gain. In this case, the increased calorie intake is secondary to the change in hormones.
Bench 315x1 - Squat 415x1 - Deadlift 515x1 Total = 1,245

3/4/5 Club as of 8-23-2019. Feels good man.

M.S. Exercise Science (2018)
Certified by: NSCA C.S.C.S, NASM-CPT

6'5 Manmore, 230 pounds, 15% body-fat (Bod Pod tested)

COLTS (football) - Lakers (LeGOAT) - Indians (Baseball) - Uconn Huskies (college) - USA Soccer
post 1551303441 05-11-2018, 10:44 AM
-
#105
  1. cobhc
  2. Structural Engineer Brah
  1. cobhc
  2. Structural Engineer Brah
  3. Join Date: Dec 2010
  4. Location: Brooklyn, New York, United States
  5. Posts: 44,106
  6. Rep Power: 281429
Originally Posted By SkinnyBeast24⏩
Most people believe that the increased calorie intake is driving the weight gain.

But what if we've got things backwards and the fat gain drives the increased calorie intake?

When a teenage boy grows rapidly in height, he eats more calories than he expends. Instead of turning into fat, the calories are used to build muscle, bones, skin and organs.

It is not the increased calorie intake that is driving the growth, but hormones, growth factors and physiological processes that are causing the growth and the growth drives the increased calorie intake. That makes sense, right?

What if obesity is similar? What if calories are a consequences of the weight gain, not a cause?

In the same way that a teenage boy's muscles and bones grow because of hormones, an obese person's fat mass may be growing because of hormones.

One example of this is drugs like some antidepressants and birth control pills, which often have weight gain as a side effect.

There are no calories in these pills, but they alter the physiology of the body (brain and hormones) to cause weight gain. In this case, the increased calorie intake is secondary to the change in hormones.
Like the previous poster, you're absolutely over complicating this. The body is complex and the required fuel your body needs is based on so many variables that it would be nearly impossible to ever pin point it exactly. For the one millionth time though, calories are a unit of energy and 4 calories from a protein is the exact same amount of energy as 4 calories from ky jelly.
NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS
RED BULL RACING
post 1551303621 05-11-2018, 10:46 AM
-
#106
  1. wesleysh21
  2. Registered User
  1. wesleysh21
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2006
  4. Location: South Carolina, United States
  5. Age: 47
  6. Posts: 19,701
  7. Rep Power: 161302
Originally Posted By cobhc⏩
I understand how it works but you just stated that not every calorie is the same. It's a defined unit of energy..... One unit = One unit.

You're confusing yourself by over complicating this. Your body needs x amount of energy per day to survive which includes metabolizing different foods, maintaining body temperature, etc... No one here is debating that the latter varies.

The point is, you'll never win against physics no matter how abstract your analysis gets. If less energy goes into your body than that which is required, your body will look elsewhere.

4 Calories from 1 g of Protein is exactly the same amount of energy as 4 Calories from 1 g of Carbohydrates.

It's really not difficult to understand.

Your argument is akin to telling me that two engines producing exactly 500 hp at the crank do not produce the same power because the displacement is different. They are different engines with inherent differences but they still produce the same power.
I'm sure it makes you feel better to oversimplify it and make it equal an exact number...but you are actually incorrect. But hey, people love their numbers and cling to them for dear life.
ALL I ASK IS ALL YOU GOT FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES
post 1551303891 05-11-2018, 10:50 AM
-
#107
  1. cobhc
  2. Structural Engineer Brah
  1. cobhc
  2. Structural Engineer Brah
  3. Join Date: Dec 2010
  4. Location: Brooklyn, New York, United States
  5. Posts: 44,106
  6. Rep Power: 281429
Originally Posted By wesleysh21⏩
I'm sure it makes you feel better to oversimplify it and make it equal an exact number...but you are actually incorrect. But hey, people love their numbers and cling to them for dear life.
It's an exact number because the scientific community has agreed on it. These exact numbers are why we have infrastructure, space travel, electricity, and computers so you can spread your uneducated cancer on the misc..

You're literally telling me that 1 calorie does not equal 1 calorie. Are you Jaden Smith?
NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS
RED BULL RACING
post 1551304151 05-11-2018, 10:53 AM
-
#108
  1. SkinnyBeast24
  2. From Bones to Brawn
  1. SkinnyBeast24
  2. From Bones to Brawn
  3. Join Date: Jun 2011
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 36
  6. Posts: 33,318
  7. Rep Power: 77102
Originally Posted By cobhc⏩
Like the previous poster, you're absolutely over complicating this. The body is complex and the required fuel your body needs is based on so many variables that it would be nearly impossible to ever pin point it exactly. For the one millionth time though, calories are a unit of energy and 4 calories from a protein is the exact same amount of energy as 4 calories from ky jelly.
The bottom line is this

Different calorie sources can have vastly different effects on hunger, hormones, energy expenditure and the brain regions that control food intake.

Even though calories are important, counting them or even being consciously aware of them is not at all necessary to lose weight.

In many cases, simple changes in food selection can lead to the same or better results than restricting your calorie intake.

My biggest issue with CICOis that people use it as an excuse to still eat whatever they want as long as IIFYM. This works for many trained individuals. They know their bodies. They know their goals. For the general population, CICO isn't enough. It's a start...but you have to address body composition which CICO doesn't.

To get an overweight/obese individual to REALLY change and make it a lifestyle. You need to go in depth from the beginning. You can't sugar coat and preach CICO. You need to focus on the quality of what they are eating and not worry as much about the #'s. You can focus on that later. The goal is recomposition. Getting them to understand what the training is doing. Having the right answers to why they may have not lost weight. They are in that wierd stage where they can lose fat, but gain muscle. We all know this doesn't last forever.

That is my problem with CICO for the general population. You have to go deeper. Stop making it easy. They already took the easy way out and they are now obese and can't walk up the stairs. You educate them. You go deeper. It shows you care. Etc.
Bench 315x1 - Squat 415x1 - Deadlift 515x1 Total = 1,245

3/4/5 Club as of 8-23-2019. Feels good man.

M.S. Exercise Science (2018)
Certified by: NSCA C.S.C.S, NASM-CPT

6'5 Manmore, 230 pounds, 15% body-fat (Bod Pod tested)

COLTS (football) - Lakers (LeGOAT) - Indians (Baseball) - Uconn Huskies (college) - USA Soccer
post 1551304321 05-11-2018, 10:56 AM
-
#109
  1. wesleysh21
  2. Registered User
  1. wesleysh21
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2006
  4. Location: South Carolina, United States
  5. Age: 47
  6. Posts: 19,701
  7. Rep Power: 161302
Originally Posted By cobhc⏩
It's an exact number because the scientific community has agreed on it. These exact numbers are why we have infrastructure, space travel, electricity, and computers so you can spread your uneducated cancer on the misc..

You're literally telling me that 1 calorie does not equal 1 calorie. Are you Jaden Smith?
Its an exact number because it makes people feel better who love numbers. Then they can say things like "the scientific community agrees." They agree on a lot of chit that was wrong. And then its "uneducated" if you don't blindly concede to anything a scientist says or some number.

The problem isn't that I know too little. Its that I know too much. Its not an exact science. There are exact sciences out there, but this isn't one of them. You know what else is not an exact science? Something else you mentioned...electricity. It looks nice and neat on paper but go actually build some chit and you'll find its not as neat and tidy as the calculations.
ALL I ASK IS ALL YOU GOT FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES
post 1551304671 05-11-2018, 11:04 AM
-
#110
  1. Miked1978
  2. Registered User
  1. Miked1978
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2007
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 47
  6. Posts: 9,952
  7. Rep Power: 32887
You sound like you have some Layne Norton in you.

Do you have a Ph D too?
LOL @ people who follow politics
post 1551304761 05-11-2018, 11:06 AM
-
#111
  1. SkinnyBeast24
  2. From Bones to Brawn
  1. SkinnyBeast24
  2. From Bones to Brawn
  3. Join Date: Jun 2011
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 36
  6. Posts: 33,318
  7. Rep Power: 77102
Originally Posted By Miked1978⏩
You sound like you have some Layne Norton in you.

Do you have a Ph D too?
Not yet. Plus I wouldn't go for nutrition. I'd look at postural distortion patterns. Figuring out the best ways to measure them. And creating the best programs to fix them.

Thesis was on anterior pelvic tilt. I had strong data for that. But I can go deeper.

Nutrition is a hobby i like to learn about.
Bench 315x1 - Squat 415x1 - Deadlift 515x1 Total = 1,245

3/4/5 Club as of 8-23-2019. Feels good man.

M.S. Exercise Science (2018)
Certified by: NSCA C.S.C.S, NASM-CPT

6'5 Manmore, 230 pounds, 15% body-fat (Bod Pod tested)

COLTS (football) - Lakers (LeGOAT) - Indians (Baseball) - Uconn Huskies (college) - USA Soccer
post 1551304811 05-11-2018, 11:06 AM
-
#112
  1. sooby
  2. WOATbrah of peace :)
  1. sooby
  2. WOATbrah of peace :)
  3. Join Date: Feb 2015
  4. Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  5. Posts: 43,319
  6. Rep Power: 219409
Originally Posted By TheJediBrah⏩
You're still talking about something completely different. Nothing you're saying has anything to do with CICO. CICO is 100% accurate, 100% of the time. There are no exceptions.

You're just talking about variables that affect Calories out
Originally Posted By TheJediBrah⏩
It's like you're saying "winning games of football isn't about scoring more points than the other team, stop preaching that B.S." then going on to explain your suggestions of tactics that help you score more points than the other team.
rep this man

OP, I think what you literally just explained ultimately boils down to calories in, calories out. Everybody knows it is somewhat of an oversimplification. But what you are explaining are fundamentally different questions. IF you want to lose weight it is about calories in calories out. Nobody is arguing against eating 2000 calories of nutrient deficient foods. Because to build/preserve muscle you need enough protein, to ensure adequate functioning hormones you need enough fats. For overall health you need enough of your micros.

you said something about ghrelin increasing appetite which is correlated to consuming more. Which again goes back to the whole calories in calories out.

If a client walks up to you and asks, how do you lose weight? Quite simply you would say you would need to consume less food and increase your activity. Then naturally the client would ask, how would I go about this? Which is what you have been talking about kicks in.



But you aren't going to explain to a client biochemical pathways and insulin sensitivity. All the client wants to know and do is presumably lose some weight. Calories in calories out is a simple yet effective approach that wont cause paralysis by analysis and is something that is easier to stick to. Lol @ being so potato that you analyze the glucose/fructose ratios of foods when in practicality makes 5% at most if i am being generous of a difference. I think pareto's law should apply here when dealing with the general population.


Some good general advice for people looking to lose fat, preserve/build muscle and live a healthier lifestyle would be to lift weights, do cardio, eat more to build muscle, eat less to lose fat, hit your macros/micros and eat a variety of meats/veggies/fruits/grains. How you achieve this is a different question altogether but everything after that still boils down to the same fundamental laws.
positivity brah crew
dont take my posts too srs crew srs
JFL @ everything crew
lol @ tradies srs crew
BIG LOL @ sky tradies srs crew (RealAesthetic)
indian crew
living in clown world crew so screw it crew
anti-degen crew
post 1551304981 05-11-2018, 11:10 AM
-
#113
  1. SkinnyBeast24
  2. From Bones to Brawn
  1. SkinnyBeast24
  2. From Bones to Brawn
  3. Join Date: Jun 2011
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 36
  6. Posts: 33,318
  7. Rep Power: 77102
Originally Posted By sooby⏩
rep this man

OP, I think what you literally just explained ultimately boils down to calories in, calories out. Everybody knows it is somewhat of an oversimplification. But what you are explaining are fundamentally different questions. IF you want to lose weight it is about calories in calories out. Nobody is arguing against eating 2000 calories of nutrient deficient foods. Because to build/preserve muscle you need enough protein, to ensure adequate functioning hormones you need enough fats. For overall health you need enough of your micros.

you said something about ghrelin increasing appetite which is correlated to consuming more. Which again goes back to the whole calories in calories out.

If a client walks up to you and asks, how do you lose weight? Quite simply you would say you would need to consume less food and increase your activity. Then naturally the client would ask, how would I go about this? Which is what you have been talking about kicks in.



But you aren't going to explain to a client biochemical pathways and insulin sensitivity. All the client wants to know and do is presumably lose some weight. Calories in calories out is a simple yet effective approach that wont cause paralysis by analysis and is something that is easier to stick to. Lol @ being so potato that you analyze the glucose/fructose ratios of foods when in practicality makes 5% at most if i am being generous of a difference. I think pareto's law should apply here when dealing with the general population.


Some good general advice for people looking to lose fat, preserve/build muscle and live a healthier lifestyle would be to lift weights, do cardio, eat more to build muscle, eat less to lose fat, hit your macros/micros and eat a variety of meats/veggies/fruits/grains. How you achieve this is a different question altogether but everything after that still boils down to the same fundamental laws.
I enjoy making simple topics complicated. It's my field after all and so I want to go fartherBut yes, you make good points.

And you'd be surprised at some of the questions you'll get once in a while from clients. Some actually do want to know the in-depth physiological answers. Rare...but it happens. So i try to find an answer for em
Bench 315x1 - Squat 415x1 - Deadlift 515x1 Total = 1,245

3/4/5 Club as of 8-23-2019. Feels good man.

M.S. Exercise Science (2018)
Certified by: NSCA C.S.C.S, NASM-CPT

6'5 Manmore, 230 pounds, 15% body-fat (Bod Pod tested)

COLTS (football) - Lakers (LeGOAT) - Indians (Baseball) - Uconn Huskies (college) - USA Soccer
post 1551305151 05-11-2018, 11:13 AM
-
#114
  1. cobhc
  2. Structural Engineer Brah
  1. cobhc
  2. Structural Engineer Brah
  3. Join Date: Dec 2010
  4. Location: Brooklyn, New York, United States
  5. Posts: 44,106
  6. Rep Power: 281429
Originally Posted By wesleysh21⏩
Its an exact number because it makes people feel better who love numbers. Then they can say things like "the scientific community agrees." They agree on a lot of chit that was wrong. And then its "uneducated" if you don't blindly concede to anything a scientist says or some number.

The problem isn't that I know too little. Its that I know too much. Its not an exact science. There are exact sciences out there, but this isn't one of them. You know what else is not an exact science? Something else you mentioned...electricity. It looks nice and neat on paper but go actually build some chit and you'll find its not as neat and tidy as the calculations.
You're trolling right? The science IS exact. The problem is that in reality, we have to take into account millions of factors that will deviate from ideal conditions presented in experiments which include inconsistencies in the fabrication of materials, metallurgy, geometric impurities, etc... We handle this problem by establishing standards and by providing safety factors based on probability.
NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS
RED BULL RACING
post 1551307381 05-11-2018, 11:46 AM
-
#115
  1. Bassackwards
  2. Registered User
  1. Bassackwards
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jul 2009
  4. Location: Honolulu, Hawaii, Chad
  5. Posts: 19,572
  6. Rep Power: 42651
you guys are nuking the chit out of this. the truth to making gains is:

This is ten percent luck
Twenty percent skill
Fifteen percent concentrated power of will
Five percent pleasure
Fifty percent pain
And a hundred percent reason to remember the name
US Navy Veteran
eats sriracha with everything
^^VV<><> BA Start
post 1551307681 05-11-2018, 11:51 AM
-
#116
  1. Zerafian
  2. Droppin' truth bombs
  1. Zerafian
  2. Droppin' truth bombs
  3. Join Date: Dec 2006
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 25,017
  6. Rep Power: 75344
Originally Posted By MichaelDuong⏩
somewhat agreed

a calorie is a calorie yes but the quality of it is important

if you're on a diet you'll feel like **** eating pure 2,000 calories of pizza

because most likely thats only a few slices and won't keep you full/energized

whereas you eat 2,000 calories of brocc/chicken/rice you'll be very energized, satiated, full etc

but you can always balance both, at the end of the day if you don't eat more than your body burns you lose weight, vice versa
came in to say this
Carb Mal-absorption, no breads, sugary snacks, rice, pasta...live off of 30-40g a day.
Eosinophilic eso****itis, cant ingest dairy or my eso****us closes up
post 1551307731 05-11-2018, 11:52 AM
-
#117
  1. Luc1fer
  1. Luc1fer
  3. Join Date: Jun 2014
  4. Posts: 45,573
  5. Rep Power: 685731
The concept works well for practical purposes. Go back to the research lab, nerd.
๐•ฎ๐–๐–†๐–˜๐–Š ๐–† ๐–ˆ๐–๐–Š๐–ˆ๐•ถ, ๐–“๐–Š๐–›๐–Š๐–— ๐–ˆ๐–๐–†๐–˜๐–Š ๐–† ๐–‡๐–Ž๐–™๐–ˆ๐–

โ–ˆโ–“โ–’โ–’โ–‘โ–‘๐ŸงตMake trolls invisible: https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=180234573 โ–‘โ–‘โ–’โ–’โ–“โ–ˆ
post 1551307831 05-11-2018, 11:53 AM
-
#118
  1. Rebuilt3
  2. Registered User
  1. Rebuilt3
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Oct 2017
  4. Posts: 765
  5. Rep Power: 895
I do agree that types of foods are very important. I get right mentally dazed if I go low enough on calories or have ****ty macros
post 1551307861 05-11-2018, 11:53 AM
-
#119
  1. PeptideY
  2. ๐Ÿ
  1. PeptideY
  2. ๐Ÿ
  3. Join Date: Feb 2018
  4. Posts: 192
  5. Rep Power: 0
Spot on.

I once did a test to see how different composition of food would effect satiety.

High fiber legumes and high protein meals would keep hunger at bay for about 11 hours vs 7 for your standard grain on grease.

The later was followed by more intense hunger.
๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿšฒ๐Ÿ”ฅ
******โšก
post 1551307921 05-11-2018, 11:54 AM
-
#120
  1. Luc1fer
  1. Luc1fer
  3. Join Date: Jun 2014
  4. Posts: 45,573
  5. Rep Power: 685731
Originally Posted By PeptideY⏩
Spot on.

I once did a test to see how different composition of food would effect satiety.

High fiber legumes and high protein meals would keep hunger at bay for about 11 hours vs 7 for your standard grain on grease.

The later was followed by more intense hunger.
And how does that refute the concept of a caloric deficit?

It makes iteasierto hit, but that isn't the argument.
๐•ฎ๐–๐–†๐–˜๐–Š ๐–† ๐–ˆ๐–๐–Š๐–ˆ๐•ถ, ๐–“๐–Š๐–›๐–Š๐–— ๐–ˆ๐–๐–†๐–˜๐–Š ๐–† ๐–‡๐–Ž๐–™๐–ˆ๐–

โ–ˆโ–“โ–’โ–’โ–‘โ–‘๐ŸงตMake trolls invisible: https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=180234573 โ–‘โ–‘โ–’โ–’โ–“โ–ˆ
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts