>calories in
>calories out
who else hates this meme?
>>36467911
What's the screencap from?
>>36467911
Haha i get it because the picture is of a fat man, good one OP! XD
I do
it implies that I can eat all my calories with just table sugar and maintain weight
>>36467911
It isn't a meme. Cals in vs cals out will help you lose weight but as >>36467953
Said, if you do it with bad shit you'll still be unhealthy
>>36467984
unhealthy, yes
but he is right you can cut on 100% sugar if you count your calories.
though i dont know how long you will live.
>>36467911
I hate it too because it's such an incredible simplification it's essentially wrong. But /fit/ is a circlejerk and has agreed that it's gospel so expect lots of abuse in this thread
>>36467911
I just wish it would be disclaimed. Like a commercial for a sweepstakes or something.
IE. Yes this is true BUT also...
>>36468033
>saying we absorb 100% of food we intake no matter what that food is
>saying you can drink 3000 calories worth of oil and absorb all of it
>>36467953
>implying you aren't taking a scoop full of sugar right before your max deadlift for that glycogen rush
shiggy diggy
>>36467911
Fat loss, and for that matter muscle gain, has "tiered" things you can do to achieve your goals. I think it's fucking stupid when people get neurotic about exact macro percentages when it's going to only make a 5% difference in weight loss/muscle gain over being more flexible with +/- 5-10% of wiggle room UNLESS they're in prep for a show or something where even being 1% behind can mean getting second place instead of first.
Muscle gain/weight loss (these are just general guesses) is dependent on:
>80% calories in/calories out
>10% macros
>5% vitamins
>3% electrolytes/minerals
>2% supplements
So in my opinion calories in -> calories out isn't a meme and it's generally good advice, but at the same time shouldn't be used as an excuse to eat poptarts.
>>36468033
you wont be able to cut on 100% table sugar, you'll end up fatter and lose muscle
>>36468085
>glycogen rush
I know what you mean but that word doesnt mean what you think it means
>>36467928
Youtube guy named boogie. He rages about video games and stuff.
It's true to some extent, provided you eat the right macros and dont drown yourself in sugar.
>>36468126
>>80% calories in/calories out
>>10% macros
this is wrong
macros are more important than that
lets say I eat 100% fat do I still maintain my weight if I eat enough maintanance cals? nope
cal in cal out is just a guideline
>>36468300
>this is wrong
>clearly stated "these are just general guesses"
>not assuming he meant something within reason like all macros no less than 20% and no more than 60%
>>36467911
Hating science
>cico is a meme
>anorexics are also a meme
>>36467911
the formula stands.
The problem is ppl dont understand there is a difference between how many calories are in the food I consume and how many calories is my body able to extract from that. The latter depends heavily on other factors
>>36467911
We know it's not as simple as calories in and out, there are a bunch of other factors that must be taken into account. BUT, for the bulk of the population, keeping track of the amount of calories you have in a day by estimation and working out often is plenty to stay healthy. Nothing beyond that is necessary unless you're looking for something more.
>>36467911
im losing weight cause im in a deficit
this fat fuck is going to die cause he eats at a massive surplus
now kill yourself.
>>36467911
It's been working great for me.
I don't give a fuck whether you like it or not.
>>36467953
Scientifically you can, but nutritionally you're literally not getting what you need you survive. Body needs way more nutrients that just what sugar can give you. Simpler life forms, sure.
>>36467911
>who else hates this meme?
people who have no self-control
Calories in calories out is correct. /fit/ is so fucking stupid omg.
>what if i eat 100% this macro
Go ahead and do that you fucking skinny autist. Nobody gives a shit LOL. Just make sure you explain to your mom why you're eating all of her sugar.
Calorie management is soooooo easy. If you count calories you should count money, go buy a gun and kill yourself with it.
>natty so protein requirements are like 80 grams
>is fat even abundant in non fat food? How can you overeat fat?
>carbs are literally the most important
>if bulking eat a lot. If not don't. Still eat like 200 a day or a small meal if v you feel a need for energy.
If you torture yourself or stress about your body you should join Barbie in anorexic anonymous
>>36469136
>Scientifically you can
nope
how would I support muscle mass with just sugar
>>36469420
>Go ahead and do that you fucking skinny autist. Nobody gives a shit LOL
good argument
>first law of thermodynamics
>meme
Sure cutting on clean food is probably better for you than cutting on donuts, and you'll probably look better for it, but you won't lose any extra.
>>36469552
>energy in=energy out is a good way to describe human physiology
retard
>>36469552
it's infinitely better for you
On a clean diet you'll maintain more muscle and lose more fat compared to a shit diet at a deficit.
>>36467953
Basically and scientifically you can't to you fuckwits.
Say you eat your maintenance at 3000kcal of just sugar and that's your TDEE and you do nothing else; ergo you get insulin resistance --> diabetic state --> fat gain due to hormonal changes.
Drop it by 200 kcals and still it's an issue.
While less calories will equate to some form of weight loss, it does not imply you'll lose fat or muscle, it may be water or whatever else. It depends on macronutrient composition and your hormonal status as well as epigenetics (big major here, you'll see studies of people on caloric restriction with certain gene traits being different and one group loses more than the other, even though hormonal states are both normal and the same)
It's a much bigger scheme than calories in and calories out.
PhD in Genetics here, BSc in Human Biology and Masters in Organic Chemistry & pharmaceutical sciences (don't ask, I changed career paths again like twice, I literally don't know what I wanna do after this hell hole PhD working every fucking night is over)
>>36469741
really needed to estat your "Ph.D in genetics" just to tell us that you can't survive just on fucking sucrose?
I have a friend who switched to vegan and despite eating more calories than before she lost 15lbs in a month. So eat shit black science man.
>>36467911
But it's true, I just lost 6kg since January just by eating less calories.
>>36467911
>who else hates this meme?
I only hate faggots [OP] that claim it's a meme
>>36469485
Did you even read his post you fucking mongoloid?
>>36469764
Eating leaves and grass is not a good way to survive for a human
Kill you're're self vegan boy
>>36469764
>despite eating more calories than before she lost 15lbs in a month
No, she didn't. She clearly ate less calories. Fact. Not arguable.
>>36469552
> forgetting the second law of thermodynamics
No, you dipshit, your system wears down (i.e.entropy increase), and your body becomes less and less able to properly work, and you die.
Even cars, much less people, aren't just "fuel in, fuel out" machines, you also have to manage the engine oil, coolant, tire pressure, break pads + fluids, etc., if you don't want to die driving it.
And believe me, your conscious goal might be "lose weight by any means necessary", but the 99.9% of your body that isn't your consciousness has the goal of "stay alive".
>>36469764
>>36469810
>>36469796
nope
what happens with vegans is they eat very high carb, high carb vegan diet doesnt produce much insulin response and so you wont maintain fat stores and likely not the same muscle mass
what also happens is the amount of inflammation decreases too(because youre not eating those twinkies anymore), which leads to waterweight loss also
>>36469754
>implying I don't have a PhD in genetics
Well I don't but I'm doing my PhD atm I should've added that in, I don't hae a PhD I'm just doing it
also yes
because you cunts act like you need one in a biological science to know jack shit
>>36467911
Is this from a recent video? Has he gotten even fatter?
>>36469879
freelee pls go
My wife sure does. I keep trying g to get her to just eat healthy instead of just obsessively counting calories.
At least her son has it figured out.
>>36467911
I hate that shit.
Look at Boogie. If it was as simple as calories in calories out, he would've lost weight by now. Obviously there's more to it than that.
>>36469879
>very high carb
>doesnt produce much insulin response
Sugar is vegan anon
Also, pasta
I am 100% sure your "friend" thinks she's eating "more" because she's feeling full of all the fiber rich vegetables she's eating, she did NOT count the calories
>>36470223
It is as simple as calories in vs calories out.
From what I've gathered (I don't watch obese stupid gamers), the only reason he wasn't losing weight was because he was cheating and never managed to last more than a month.
Of course it's better to eat good foods, but scientifically you could very well survive on a diet of pure sugar as long as you got your micronutrients from pills.
>>36469879
How do you explain fat vegans
>>36469879
>high carb diet doesnt produce much insulin response
Are you fucking retarded mate? What do you think triggers insulin?
>>36470383
>>36470814
Excellent gif with no argument whatsoever. Please explain to these people why you are correct if you are.
>>36470872
Cringe.
>>36468271
classic case of making shit up.
So you think someone will gain weight eating only 500 calories of table sugar a day? Are you pretending to be retarded?
>>36470888
Edgelord
>>36471186
Not the other anon, but the gain / lose weight on 500 kcal in table sugar diet is irrelevant to humans in the same way gain / lose weight on 500 kcal in vodka diet is.
In both cases, if an outside force enforces the diet on you, you will die. If you try to enforce the diet on yourself, your body, doing it's best to not die, will refuse to cooperate with you midway through, turn off your conscious control, and force you to eat other stuff.
Calories in = calories out, while true, is only relevant in a small region close to one's tdee before the nonlinear effects of death, permanent damage, loss of conscious control, etc., make it completely irrelevant.
>>36471550
The existence of anorexia proves you wrong.
>>36470383
you need fats and proteins for a wide variety of bodily functions you chuckle fuck.
>>36469879
Isn't it time for a sugar smoothie Durianrider?
>eating healthy WHILE counting calories is so fucking hard you guys!!!1!1
>>36469741
>ergo you get insulin resistance --diabetic state --fat gain due to hormonal changes.
[Citation needed]
