Is calories in - calories out misleading?
Your metabolism can be influenced by what you eat etc., no?
>>36569370
>Is calories in - calories out misleading?
no
>>36569370
Depends how fat you are. 15% or more, calories in calories out less than 15% bf start manipulating macros and eating proteins with good amino acid profile and complex carbs
No, you're retarded - it still boils down to calories in vs out.
What you're talking about is the Thermic Effect of Food. That would heighten the calories out, but the equation itself is still the same.
>>36569420
>Depends how fat you are
No, you're retarded too. Calories in vs calories out is always the same when it comes to weight. Macros are for composition, nutrient partitioning, etc. and would apply regardless of weight.
The only reason someone fat wouldn't eat proper macros even while lowering calories is because they're fat retards (similar to you).
Pic very much related
>>36569420
>Depends how fat you are
no it doesn't. The formula remains the same. Take in food for energy, exert work and use energy. You're doing the thing regardless of what fat percent you're at, it's just more valuable to eat foods that provide greater satiety to get to very low fat percentages.
If you have a daily energy usage of 2000 calories and eat 2000 calories of good food like you describe, you still don't lose any weight.
>>36569476
But wouldn't your daily energy usage be influenced by what you eat.
2000 calories of something won't bring the same energy usage of 2000 calories of another thing; thus being a bit misleading.
>>36569370
>Calories consumed (a ratio of calories in)- calories out
Anyone who thinks your body is 100% efficient consuming every single calorie that enters your body is not thinking sensibly
>>36569370
if calories in/calories out were the only thing that mattered then keto wouldn't work. people just won't let go of the meme
/fit/ is so stupid, Jesus Christ. It's so painfully obvious that no one here actually knows about health and fitness.
>>36569370
Yes
>>36569417
No
>>36569451
>>36569476
Absolutely wrong.
>>36569534
Exact.
This has been discussed with papers, academic publications and whatnot, I'm sick of these threads.
Counting Calories is good only as a rule of thumb.
>>36569562
Pretty much this.
>>36569370
"calories out" can be influenced (slightly) by "calories in". That doesn't mean the concept itself is wrong, it just means that certain foods can (slightly) speed up or slow down your metabolism, causing you to burn (slightly) more or fewer calories.
>>36569370
All Calories aren't the same. Calories from protein process and feed systems that calories from beer or candy wouldn't. Not to say you wont get fat if you over eat, but what you eat can make a huge difference and have consequences in numerous aspects both physiologically and psychologically
>>36569370
Do yourself a favour: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/3500-calorie-rule.html/
And every other article on that site.
>>36569575
Keto only works because you eat enough fat to feel "full" and stop eating while still at a calorie deficit. It doesn't violate CICO, it just makes it so that you don't actually have to do the math.
>>36569638
>Keto only works because you eat enough fat to feel "full" and stop eating while still at a calorie deficit
get a load of this retard
>>36569676
Not sure if serious, but I'm just coming off of a 6 month keto cycle where I lost 50 pounds. I know what I'm talking about. I highly encourage any fatty to try keto, but I just want to make sure people understand what is actually happening "behind the scenes".
