If that's true explain these two scenarios:
A marathon runner who burns 5000+ calories a day but he obviously can't eat that everyday.
A competitive eater who eats 24000+ calories and obviously can't burn that in a day.
>>35660768
Marathon runners generally don't burn 5k calories in a day and will typically lose weight over the course of a race day (partially offset by water intake, but not entirely).
Competitive eaters do not eat like that consistently and many of them purge after competitions. Those that don't purge put on a stack of weight compared to pre-meal and lose it over the course of a couple days or weeks (because very few of them are gonna feel like eating a damn thing for a while afterwards).
Marathon runner hits "the wall" where he starts to burn fat reserves.
The eater excretes excess food he doesn't digest.
>marathon runner
CAN eat that much in a single day, but doesn't burn 5000 calories every day
>competitive eater
only eats that much sporadically (ie, in competition or training), obviously does gain weight but doesn't balloon up
Am I being baited?
Marathon runners can and do eat that much in a day. Some upwards of 10,000 during Olympic training. Even Michael Phelps had a quota of 12,000.
As for the competitive eaters, they don't burn it off all at one. Matt Stonie (world champion eater) says that he stays thin because his diet is on point when he's not training/competing.
fuck future
goddamn coon tunes
>>35660768
> that album
myyyyyyy niggaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
>>35660768
I know you're looking to extremes, but with regard to people not burning their intake and still not experiencing weight gain, it is a thing which occurs noticeably in some extreme scenarios.
HOWEVER, there is no scenario in which someone will not lose weight when eating less than they burn. It's physically impossible.
Fuel into an engine -> Sometimes it's an inefficient output of energy and there's loss
Not enough fuel into engine -> It can't magically work on pixie dust; it will fail to function.
>If that's true explain
If your post isn't bait, I suggest you familiarize yourself with some basic physics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
>>35660768
>purple reign
my nigga
>>35660768
It's all about habits.
If you are constantly burning calories or taking in calories, your body will change.
One random increase or decrease in calories won't affect the overall trend significantly.
>>35660794
Matt stonie, a famous competitive eater, does these challenges weekly. Even over a that's still 3400 calories. Plus he's got at least be eating 1000 a day. If that's not a surplus then I don't know what is.
>>35660815
Post your music phaggot. I stay with klu klux klan in these streets.
>>35660818
>>35660925
Ayyyy I stay listening to coon tunes
>>35660913
You're completely forgetting biology and only focusing on the physics aspect.
>>35660956
Do you think that living things are somehow excluded from the laws of Physics? Just because you're fat, thermodynamics must not apply to you?
If your GI tract absorbs (calories in) broken-down food containing more calories than your body burns (calories out), your body will store the extra energy as fat. That extra energy does not go 'poof'. There is no escaping this fact.
Don't conflate calories in with calories eaten. Maybe that's why you are confused?
>>35660956
>Matt stonie
He probably doesn't get YouTube to film the part where he vomits everything back up again.
Why would you assume I can't eat 5k calories, or burn 20k calories in a day? Both of those are do-able. To eat 5k calories I wouldn't even have to do GOMAD, I already eat close to 4,000 of solid food, even without cardio (which would increase my appetite further).
So what exactly are you claiming, OP? That marathon runners are literally wizards?
>>35660768
>purple reign
you a real nigga OP
although i only like 2 songs on the mixtape... hater shit and run up are the only decent ones on there imo
