If I wanted to prove that Calories In / Calories Out was bullshit and that fat gain / loss was hormonal, what would I have to do it prove it to you?
I'm thinking about doing a week long bulk, I would video tape myself preparing, weighing, and eating every meal. My daily caloric intake would have to be high enough that I couldn't possibly burn it off through exercise. I believe you guys would be in so much denial about the results that I would even have to video tape myself after eating to prove I am not throwing up my meals. I would eat LCHF for the duration of the bulk.
I chose a week long duration because I don't want to spend quadruple on my food budget for the entire month and it shouldn't matter with CICO the duration, only the calories I intake. With that being said:
How many calories daily would I need to ingest?
What weight would you expect me to be at given the caloric intake for a week?
What ways do you think I would cheat the experiment that I could prove to you I am not through the video?
> what would I have to do it prove it to you?
Build a perpetual motion engine and solve the world's energy problems while making a fuckton of money and overturning thermodynamics. Good luck.
>>37453994
oh the thermodynamics meme
all the first law says is that if something gets more or less massive, then more energy or less energy has to enter it than leave it. it says nothing about why this happens. It says nothing about cause and effect.
now parrot something else or answer my question.
> if something gets more or less massive, then more energy or less energy has to enter it than leave it
In other words: adding fat requires a calorie surplus.
You can't prove this with anonymous shitposting. Literally impossible - there's no evidence you can put here that would be convincing. And even if you could, and conducted it rigorously, a one week study with a sample size of one is barely even an anecdote. Worth absolutely nothing.
>>37453964
What's the point of this you enormous cock gobbling faggot. Whatever you use to calculate your caloric intake obviously isn't going to be 100% correct for you since they're all estimations based off of averages of a number of people. This experiment is going to take way longer than a week if you want an accurate calorie measurement of both your food and what you burn as a basal metabolic rate. And since you aren't going to burn your food or yourself alive in a calorimeter (a fucking shame, you faggot) you aren't going to get accurate measurements for your food either.
>>37453964
it's literally impossible to prove that fat gain / loss is hormonal, just google the "twinkie diet" man.
>>37453964
Depends how big you are. I'm thinking if you ingested 8000 calories a day minimum, and didn't vomit any up, and did this daily for 3 months, yet gained under 1 kg of weight, I'd believe you.
>>37454148
so you see what I'm saying? In real science, there is always the possibility that a theory is wrong. but you are outraged and like a religious zealot refuse to believe my premise when I'm asking you what proof you would require.
>>37454201
What proof? Eat 0 calories a day and watch the scale weight plummet, eat as much as you can fit in what is presumably your fat craw, and watch yourself balloon up further, there's proof that a mass ingesting more energy than it burns will increase in size, and vice versa. The calories in/out aren't going to be super accurate, but they offer valuable estimations that are applicable to real life, and are accurate enough for people to get healthier and lose weight in a sensible way.
Take something that will suppress your thyroid and watch yourself get fat and fuck up your cholesterol on a cutting diet
>>37454039
>trying to discredit something the Black Science Magic Tyson holds true
You're an idiot
eat 10000 kcal daily on 1g test e/wk
eat 1000 kcal daily on 1g estrogen /wk
>the lengths fatties will go to to excuse their lazyness and gluttony
All you need to do is provide a reasonable explanation for how your body would maintain the same weight while eating 500 calories under your true TDEE and I'd consider your point. But you can't. Because it's illogical. Your body would need to decrease its heart rate, respiration rate, brain activity, muscle activity, thermoregulation, and change many other processes in order for your metabolic rate to decrease significantly in response to a caloric deficit. It's much easier to just use your fat stores for energy. That's literally what they're there for.
>>37453964
1. The biggest determining factor is fat loss and gain is CALORIC INTAKE. It is impossible to put on weight if you aren't eating enough. IMPOSSIBLE.
2. No one denies that hormones have a lot to do with it. Leptin, Ghrelin and Thyroid all have major effects on weight gain and loss. However, if you're eating a surplus you can gain and a deficit you WILL lose. If your hormones are all out of whack, to achieve a deficit you may have to ingest a retardedly small amount of food. But it is possible.
3. CALORIES IN CALORIES OUT is sorta bs. If you only ate 5lbs of boiled chicken breast everyday you wouldn't gain a whole lot of weight. You're body needs glycogen and glycogensis from protein is very energy intensive. And also you would probably die.
>>37453964
Hahah dude just eat more, you're clearly someone who thinks they eat way more than they actually do. Do your little experiment, but it won't be for us, it will be for you, to prove that you CAN gain weight eating at an ACTUAL surplus via diligent tracking of calories.
Good luck OP keep us posted
>>37453964
>fatty detected
Muh hormones and genetics right?
>>37454039
What? Are you retarded? The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another.
A calorie is a unit of energy that will one gram of water by 1 degree Celsius. Your body is an energy converter, it converts the chemical energy of food into the other types of energy you need. Unless you can create energy from nothing, calories in definitely matters.
>>37454688
Different anon here
>A calorie is a unit of energy that will heat one gram of water by 1 degree Celsius.
It's a kilogram m8
>week long bulk
Lol
>>37453964
>calories in / calories out
I tried to bulk up and drank gasoline.
Not only did I not gain 15 lbs of muscle but I also had to go to the ER.
>>37454791
>kilogram
that's fuckin wrong dude.
It's a gram.
>>37454791
>One calorie amounts to a liter water warming up 1 degree celsius
>proceed to eat normal daily intake of 2500Kcal
>body exceeds temperature of the sun
Seems about right retard
>>37453964
all you would prove is that the body can only properly absorb a certin amount of food and that what that amount is depends on a varity of factors
>>37454791
>>37454841
It's a gram. But everything we see on food labels is kilocalories so that's the confusion.
Since we can't gauge how many calories your body manages to actually absorb, only thing you can disprove is that eating at deficit will not make you lose weight. So uh.. maybe try eating at 500 kcal a day for a month and show that you didn't lose any fat or muscle while doing that. Obviously waterweight etc needs to be accounted for. Hint: you'll fail.
>>37453964
>If I wanted to prove that Calories In / Calories Out was bullshit and that fat gain / loss was hormonal, what would I have to do it prove it to you?
Demonstrate it in a controlled study and show that everything we know about medical science and physics and study is part of some elaborate conspiracy
>I'm thinking about doing a week long bulk, I would video tape myself preparing, weighing, and eating every meal. My daily caloric intake would have to be high enough that I couldn't possibly burn it off through exercise. I believe you guys would be in so much denial about the results that I would even have to video tape myself after eating to prove I am not throwing up my meals. I would eat LCHF for the duration of the bulk.
This would add un needed variables to the equation. A better approach would simply be to measure your weight and calories over time with a consistent energy usage.
>>37455021
So you were off by an even greater order of magnitude lol
>>37454039
It literally CAN'T work any other way. The human body would be unable to function otherwise.
You CANNOT create matter (i.e. fat) out of nothing (i.e. not eating). It is physically impossible.
Similarly, you CANNOT create energy (i.e. breathing, walking around, you know, being alive) out of nothing (i.e. not burning body fat in the absence of food.) It is physically impossible.
If this were not true, you would literally fall over dead in a matter of hours if you missed a single meal.
>>37453964
It's going to need longer than a week, but here's what you do
>take a month off from work, you are literally just going to exist for a month
>have all of your food delivered to you via friends, family, whatever
>calculate TDEE
>eat no less than 1000 Cals below your TDEE
>log every meal with calories and other macronutrient information
>to do this, you need to prepare all of the food yourself
>count everything including butter, sauces, literally everything that goes into you
You WILL lose weight if you do all of that to a T
I already did this OP. I was getting ready for a contest and had 13 pounds to acquire to fill in the weight class. I ate about 10k cal per day for over a week.
Calories in/Calories out is true but if you put so much calories in then your food wont get digested at all. I was literally shitting out bits of vegetables i chewed.
At the end of those 10 days i gained 2-3 pounds at most consuming over 90,000 calories.
>>37453964
>and it shouldn't matter with CICO the duration
you'll end up retaining water. the duration matters, on the scale and in the short term.
CICO is an oversemplification that works, nothing more. if you want to break it, you have to show it doesn't work over the long term.
you're thinking weeks or a month, but the experiment would have to run until September to mean anything (at least 1 month to find your baseline caloric need, then a couple of months to overeat without putting on weight).
>>37453964
don't try it here on /fit/. theres so many dyels here that would get so butthurt if you challenged what they believe. props to you though for actually wanting to test the calories in/calories out theory instead of blindly believing it.
>>37454630
Read again, he's a skelly
i hear ya OP, the thermodynamics bit is trotted out as an excuse to avoid having to think about anything that deviates from the conventional wisdom about calories in/calories out
which is cool, because then you don't have to explain how people gain weight on the same diet at different rates, or understand just how fucking complex human metabolism truly is. Everything from spontaneous activity levels, thermogenic effect of food, to how many calories get pooped out would impact that CI/CO equation.. and it's nuts to think that is the only factor at play. Insulin, grehlin, leptin.. these are made up words by the jews to confuse us.. and certainly do not any effect on fat deposition or metabolism.
Or the fact that obesity in the US did not track caloric surpluses *until* the late 70's early 80's with the advent of HFCS, and the subsequent increase in calories from carbs.
But really, the main angst people on this board would have is that it explains obesity in terms that have less to do with the individual (stop eating fatty), to an actual biochemical defect (inability to process carbs) -- this is completely counter in every way to the narrative that a board dedicated to fitness operates on.
>>37456828
This is just as retarded as the flat earthers. It's crypto bullshit pseudoscience to make lazy gluttons feel better about themselves.
I was a hungry skelly, 147 lbs at 6'1. I was convinced I was eating a shit load. Started tracking my calories and turns out I'm retarded. Started eating 4000 kcal a day and now I'm 175 lbs a few months later.
No one is denying the role hormones play in maintaining body mass, fat or otherwise. The thing is that for 99.9% of the population their bmr and tdee are within 200 kcal of the average for their body weight and composition. If you're too retarded to take that into account then may God have mercy on your soul.
>>37453964
>prove that Calories In / Calories Out was bullshit and that fat gain / loss was hormonal
Most people know fat gain/loss is strongly affected by hormones: for example, strongly androgenic steroids help cut bodyfat.
So what exactly are you trying to prove?
If you eat a small excess (say an extra 1,000 kcal / day) people are going to guess hyperthyroidism, anxiety, several neurological disorders, etc -- ie that you're burning too many because of an excessive BMR.
If you eat a massive excess (eg +8000kcal) then the guesses are going to be malabsorption, short bowel syndrome, etc.
But the basic calories in/out principle still holds in most of these conditions, just need to adjust equilibrium point up or down, or change macro balance.
>>37456885
It's always up to the individual. Unless you're strapped to a bed being fed through a tube, you're the one deciding what you put in your mouth.
If you have a metabolic defect, it's your job to go to a GI specialist (or geneticist) and get it diagnosed, then put together a proper diet to compensate for it.
>>37456893
i bet you look like shit as well.
>>37455302
Tyrion looks insane, like hes just itching to kill and rape a little boy
the fat in a person's body has a quantifiable amount of chemical energy that we call calories
if a person gets fat (and therefore acquires chemical energy) that energy has to come from somewhere: food, hormones can't make you fat without energy/food
carbs don't make you fat
hormones don't make you fat
genetics don't make you fat
calories make you fat
it's literally thermodynamics and anyone saying otherwise is a science-denying idiot
>>37456948
Got abs peeking through my glorious bulk. I'm still dyel as fuck but I'm going to make it.
Added 50 lbs to my bench, 100lbs to my squat and diddly, and went from ohp the bar to 125lbs. Turns out that if you're not eating enough you won't put on more mass, like muscles.
Stop making excuses and just fucking eat more.
Fuck off JewFeed.
>>37456990
yes, calories make you fat, but what you're missing is that your expenditure is a moving target, that you have literally no real way of accurately measure.
put someone who's prone to T2 diabetes/obesity on an all sugar diet. Their activity levels will plummet (not because of hurrdurr lazy) but because roughly 100% of the calories they consume are going to be sequestered as fat; they'll also be ravenously hungry. insulin is fucking them.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, put someone who's naturally lean/has very high insulin sensitivity on a keto/low carb diet, and they'll never be hungry, and feel like they have energy to burn.
calories are necessary but not sufficient to explain obesity and weight gain :(
>>37453964
A week is way too short, you might as well just flush the bacon down the toilet and drink cum for 7 days.
>>37454039
Holy fuck my jimmies are rustled
10/10 troll
>>37454039
But if energy entered the body from the environment rather than food that would violate the second law, as entropy would decrease. dS=d(q/T)
>>37457037
Anyone will feel like shit on an all sugar diet. Put a syndrome X person on a calorie restricted diet high in carbs but with proteins and fats to mediate the insulin spike PLUS daily exercise and they'll be fine. You're putting cart before the horse in the T2 diabetics case. Metabolic syndrome X and T2 diabetes can both be managed through diet and exercise in 99.999% of cases. They may have to be slightly more careful about what they eat but it's not fucking hard.
>>37457217
see, that's the study that needs to be done i think.. I disagree, I think the syndrome x person would not be capable of doing any physical activity on a high carb diet
And i agree, it's not hard at all. It's just the low-carb diet idea is shit on by the medical field, and the very people who would benefit from it the most are explicitly told not to do it. (seriously the American Diabetes Association recommends around 200g of carbs per day.)
>>37457269
Pre diabetic/syndrome x can still process carbs for energy. Yes, a lot of it will get shunted to fat but they can still function.
My mother in law is T2 and she is always talking about how she needs to eat more carbs. She's a nurse so she should know better. Hopefully she dies soon.
>>37457395
my mom's T2 as well, but she finally got the hint and cut out the carbs
She stopped needing to take insulin and metformin after a few months of carb restriction.
Buuuuut, she got in a car accident in February and was hospitalized for 2 months. Due to the hospital administered diet, she's now back on medication :( months of progress wiped away by a medically administered diet. fantastic.
>first response about thermodynamics
I am so proud of you guys.
>>37457439
That sucks man. I'm glad you at least got through to her. Keep up the good fight.
>>37453964
>obvious bait
>one week sample size of one individual
Here's your >(You)
>>37453964
1 week isn't enough to gain visible fat.
>>37454791
No, that's a kcal, aka what nutrition is measured in. (1 kcal=1000cal, which will heat 1000g or 1 KILOGRAM of water up by one degree Celsius.)
I acknowledge that my original statement was somewhat poorly worded, though. I should have explained difference between a calorie and a Calorie better.
>>37453964
lmao this is how i know youre retarded.
do you really think your individual "experiment" is enough to provide a conclusion or evidence to a theory?
>but what is sample size
>but what is blood test
>but what is controlled/manipulated groups
>but what is randomness/variance
just kill yourself fatty
>>37454201
>hey guize what do i have to do to prove to you that 1+1 is actually 3???
>>37453964
Theoretically, an individual could have some sort of digestion inefficiency that makes them absorb less energy from food than normal people. I haven't ever heard of something like that though.
It still wouldn't disprove calories in/out though.
But no, hormones don't create energy out of nothing mate. Go ahead and do your little "test". It won't prove jack shit. You might as well say "im gonna prove to you that smoking doesn't kill people by smoking for two weeks!"
>>37459655
You haven't heard of people killing all their gut bacteria with antibiotics?
