>Be me
>Eat 3550 calories
>Gain around 1lb per week
>Do this for 3 weeks
>ohshitgettingtoofat.jpg
>Reduce calories by 200
>Only gaining between 0.1 to 0.2 lb per week
What the fuck
>>37341483
Yes, an established LAW of thermodynamics is a "meme."
>>37341483
Since when did eating 300calories above maintenance make you gain 1lb per week
Calories in vs out confirmed meme
>>37341497
>law of thermodynamics was based on human metabolism and nutrition partitioning
spot the fat fuck doing IIYFM
>>37341560
Lel
>>37341570
>drinking gasoline for my 30,000 calorie super bulk
>end up in the hospital instead
BUT MUH LAW!! ITS A FUCKING LAW, LIKE HOW IS IT POSSIBLE!?!?!
>>37341507
This
According to the 3500 calorie rule you should gain 0.5lb per week at a 250 calorie surplus
It makes no sense
>>37341483
>Eat extra calories
>Gain weight
>Eat fewer extra calories
>Gain weight more slowly
Don't see the problem. Not that I believe your numbers - you'd need some spectacularly well controlled conditions to see a 0.2 lb increase in body fat.
>>37341651
Your mistake is thinking it's possible to track either the in or (especially) the out to that level of precision.
Op don't worry about getting fat just start a cut at around 17% cut to about 13% repeat as necessary.
>>37341781
I weigh myself everyday in the morning and track all my food.
At the end of the week I work out the average weight of the week
>>37341811
I just want to gain 0.5lb per week
Is it that hard to find the exact amount of calories needed?
Depending on diet, and especially in the early stages of a bulk, you can gain water weight in amounts that do not reflect your actual fat/muscle gains. If you cut to 10% and begin your bulk dehydrated, it's possible to gain 10-20 lbs of water in the first two weeks alone from rehydrating, even though obviously it would be near-impossible to eat enough to actually gain that much weight in fat/muscle in two weeks. This rehydration can also make you look bloated, which would explain why you "started to get fat" after only three weeks, even though three weeks is far too short a time to make serious fat gains with a reasonable diet.
>>37341483
Probably an ectomorph like me.
It sucks but it's genetics.
Not much we can do about it.
>>37341884
Not too hard, but a lot harder to precisely measure your TDEE if you're active.
>>37341920
Low quality bait
>>37341507
>3500
>300 calories above maintenance
What the fuck? I thought maintenance for males of average size would be like 2500.
>>37341979
Maybe for someone who isn't active and has no muscle
as long as the energy comes from food you can normally digest, a calorie is a calorie and calories in/calories out works perfectly, assuming you know how to figure out your TDEE and have an electronic food scale. any other way of creating a diet plan suited to your weight loss/gain goals is inferior by definition.
>>37341483
Your maintenance is higher the more you weigh.
Is that so hard to get or what?
>>37342120
You're not supposed to gain more than 0.5lb per week at a 250-300 calorie surplus and OP has gained close to 1lb or more per week for 3 consecutive weeks.
Explain that faggot
>>37342129
Here, I'll explain: he miscalculated his maintenance.
There you go.
>>37342164
Then how come when he reduced calories by 200 he only gained 0.1-0.2lb per week?
A 0.1-0.2 lb of gain per week puts you at a daily surplus of 50-100 calories
>>37342164
which doesn't make sense if his maintenance is constant and he reduced his calorie intake by 200. If his TDEE was constant and he was gaining 1lb per week, he was at a 500 cal surplus.
OP was your TDEE constant throughout this? More importantly, are you taking into consideration that weighing yourself that accurately is extremely difficult? Differences in the amount of shit you're holding in your colon, water weight from sodium intake the day and two day prior, etc etc can easily make up a 0.1-0.2 lb difference.
>>37342195
>>37342200
Because his maintenance changed, as I had said in the previous post.
It feels like talking to children.
>>37342200
NEAT changed
TEF of the diet changed
Fluxes in hydration status trained
So many possibilities
>>37342195
You realize we are talking about differences of 0.1-0.2 lb in an adult male across the span of a week. This shit is not being accurately measured.
>>37342218
Changed*
>>37342210
Mate, he said he gained 3 lb. That's a difference in your BMR of less than 50 calories/day.
>>37342218
>TEF of the diet changed
Wouldn't happen unless he changed his diet.
>NEAT changed
Ask OP.
> Fluxes in hydration status
As I suggested.
The real answer is >>37341908
>>37342200
Op here
These are my logs:
Weekly weigh in @3550 calories
02/05/2016: 149.8lb
03/05/2016: 148.8lb
04/05/2016: 150.4lb
05/05/2016: 149.8lb
06/05/2016: 150.0lb
07/05/2016: 149.2lb
08/05/2016: 150.4lb
Average: 149.7lb
-------------------------------------
09/05/2016: 150.8lb
10/05/2016: 150.8lb
11/05/2016: 150.8lb
12/05/2016: 151.6lb
13/05/2016: 150.8lb
14/05/2016: 150.4lb
15/05/2016: 151.8lb
Average: 151lb
-------------------------------------------
16/05/2016: 151.8lb
17/05/2016: 151.8lb
18/05/2016: 151.8lb
19/05/2016: 152.2lb
20/05/2016: 152.2lb
21/05/2016: 151.4lb
22/05/2016: 152.6lb
Average: 151.9lb
[Average calories eaten in last 2 weeks: 3550
Weight gain in 2 weeks: 0.9lb
Maintenance = 3500x0.9 = 3150/7 = 450 calories over maintenance every day
Maintenance = 3550-450 = 3100 calories
Rate of target weight gain per month = 2lb/ 0.5 lb per week
3500x0.5 = 1050/7 = 250 calories over maintenance every day
Target calories per day = 3100+250 = 3350 calories]]
Weekly weigh in @3350 calories
23/05/2016: 152.6lb
24/05/2016: 151.8lb
25/05/2016: 151.8lb
26/05/2016: 152.6lb
27/05/2016: 152.6lb
28/05/2016: 151.0lb
Average: 152.0lb
>>37342337
Holy shit
>>37342337
3500 calorie rule confirmed meme
>>37341483
>3500cal in a pound of fat.
>cut 1400 cals per week
> go from gaining 1lb/week to gaining about . 2lb/week.
>0.8lb swing
It's all going to be within error. I bet you weren't measuring within an accuracy of a couple tenths of a pound. People vary in weight by a couple pounds day to day from eating, sweating and miscellaneous foul excretions so you really can't get that kinda accuracy unless you averaged measures over about month or more. And if you did that and still got those results the obvious conclusion is you have a difference in thermogenesis, I.e. your activity level/metabolism is different, maybe you're in slightly lower temperatures, or feeling more active. But most simple - if you did the measurements for a couple months, you are now heavier, so of course you're using more energy and gaining less weight for the energy input.
Basically, thermodynamics.
>>37341606
If our body could combust gasoline effectively, thwt would give you a nice little kick. Sadly, it don't
>>37341483
>be young male who excercises several times a week
>comes down to 3000kcal/day
>eat 3500/day
>in 7 days thats ~1lb of net gain
after a couple of weeks energy expenditure adjusts because more mass and more intense workouts to 3100-3200
>be young male+3lb who excercises several times a week
>comes down to 3100-3200kcal/day
>eat 3300/day
>in 7 days thats ~0.2lb +/- 0.1lb of net gain
makes perfect sense brah, especially since your calorie estimates are likely not accutrate to the 50's
I'm almost convinced it is. My brother is 5'8 135 and eats close to 3000 cals a day
I'm eating half that and 5'10 180. I've lost weight tho so it's not a meme, but it's still baffling how he can eat so much and be thin and I ate, at my fattest, something like 2400 and be fat
>>37342679
The log doesn't make sense though
>>37342337
>>37342721
is your activity the same? do you calculate his and yours calories? no? then you're just stupid or uneducated and that's why you don't understand what's going on
Calorie counting works as a tool, and weight change is determined only by energy surplus and deficit. The calories on nutritional labels do not reflect the energy content of your foods, as your body does not literally burn food.
100 'calories' of white sugar provides much more energy than 100 'calories' of nuts
>>37342818
Lol
>>37342831
>>37343530
You've clearly never researched this, and are regurgitating stuff you read on the internet. Just try to justify this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwater_system
>>37342770
He doesn't exercise at all and I've out-exercised him my whole life. And I begun counting his calories for like 2 weeks, yeah he east close to 3k daily
>>37343619
the difference between energy derived from 100kcal of sugar and 100kcal of nuts is smaller than your chance of getting a gf, m8
stop trying to look smart. if you had any experience you'd know that shit is meaningless in real life
>>37343670
As I said calorie counting works as a tool, I lost 100lbs counting calories
>>37343665
so you're confident that he is or you are a mutant and that you're not fucking up calculations somewhere?
k
>>37341483
>Do this for 3 weeks
>ohshitgettingtoofat.jpg
>Reduce calories by 200
I grow weed & a lot of people make the same mistakes with plants as they do with their bodies...
> oh shit, the plant is slightly underwatered
> better fucking drown it
Your problem is you adjusted by 200kcal in a 3 week period. Adjust by 100kcal every 4 weeks, max...
Its not that your body needs this much precision, but if you want to draw statistical conclusions based on your observations you need to do so over longer periods of time, with smaller changes.
>>37341483
>What is an ectomorph?
Okay /fit/ lets be real here.
What do you guys think is ACTUALLY the truth? My intuition tells me that cal in/out plays a major role but that there is obviously more to it than that. Are ALL of these people who allegedly fail on cal in/out diets just full of shit? Are they all sneaking snacks or miscounting calories? Are people REALLY that poorly educated about diet and food?
>>37343768
do you really doubt that people lie about cheating and doubt that normal people have problems with math?
>>37341483
When you're eating 3500 cals/day you have more food in you at any given point, so your weight will be higher. When you dropped to 3300 a day you lost some weight from not having as much food in you, but you still slowly put on some weight since you were still in a surplus. So many factors like hydration and how full you are can affect your weight, so it's hard to exactly measure your TDEE.
>>37343718
Should I go back to eating 3550 calories then based on my log?
>>37343691
Is it not impossible that different people use more energy in their daily life than other people? I'm 100% sure I counted everything correctly, it was a social experiment.
>>37343872
Just aim for 0.5-1lb weight gain a week on average, but don't keep adjusted your calories back and forth. Maybe try out 3350-3400 or so for a couple weeks and if you're not putting on at least 0.5lbs/week, up it to 3500.
>>37343690
So you're comment was a waste of everybodies time?
>>37343894
All of this effort to gain 5lb of muscle and still look dyel
Why even bother lifting natty
>>37344105
Rich pls go
>>37341483
>start taking creatine
>gain water weight at first
>after that weight gain normalizes
I don't see what the problem here is OP.
>>37344841
I don't take creatine
>>37342337
Either the 3500 calorie rule is outdated or I'm being retarded
>>37344625
He's right though
