There is a general consensus. It is that it is real.

Only fatties and lankies don't believe in it because they want to justify looking disgusting without having to do anything about it.

Of course you won't lose weight on a deficit if you only eat twinkies :^)

>>37289954
if you google 'calories in vs calories out' almost every post is "debunking' it though...

>>37289958
i feel like if you only ate 1000 calories a day, even if it was just in the form of twinkies, you'd still lose weight... not saying you'd be healthier but you'd lose weight.

>>37289970

Yes, you would

You wouldn't feel good or be healthy, but you would lose that weight

Anyone trying to debunk calories in/out is trying to break the laws of physics my man

>>37289970

I don't understand how you can debunk it. It is literally fundamental physics.

>>37289942
Calories in vs. calories out is the Law of Thermodynamics.

You can't create matter from nothing. You can't get fat eating nothing.

>>37290002
>https://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/
>>Bottom Line: Proponents of the “Calories in, Calories out” way of thinking say that the only thing that matters when it comes to weight loss is calories, disregarding completely the metabolic and hormonal impact of foods.
>>Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is true, but meaningless. It tells you nothing about the actual cause.
>>Different foods go through different metabolic pathways. Some foods can cause hormone changes that encourage weight gain, while other foods can increase satiety and boost the metabolic rate.

i dont fucking know, man

>>37290060

Okay so eat 10000 calories of brocoli a day and see if you gain or lose weight

>>37290070
>65 pounds of broccoli

Well hi-ho-diddly

File: iStock_BoyReading.jpg (1 MB, 1694x1133) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 1694x1133

>>37289942
Is this a personal army thing? Are you looking for an extensive debunking of the debunking? It's okay to say yes.

>>37290070
Let's do something more reasonable, like 2500 calories? That's only 15 pounds of broccoli.

>>37290096
>>37290113

kek, I didn't know it was so calorie light

Basically, calories in, calories out will forever hold true. The only difference the actual food will make is how you feel, perform, and look. Basically, eat at a deficit and eat well and you'll feel okay on your cut.

>>37290100
yeah, pretty much. I was in an argument with someone and they started sending me all these links and I'm too stupid to refute them. Sorry, for jerking you guys off.

>>37289942
all you need to understand is that calories are a unit of energy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

>>37290060
basically, calories in vs out is true, but its easier to lose or gain weight if you dont eat like a fucking retard and destroy your metabolism

Calories in/out is a massive oversimplification.

While it is "basic physics" that energy not expended is stored, said energy may not always be stored as fats - this is where hormones, macros, genetics etc come in.

But it is true enough as a rough rule, and the concept of being "born fat" is still bullshit

>>37290060
> Proponents of the “Calories in, Calories out” way of thinking say that the only thing that matters when it comes to weight loss is calories
>only way

No they don't. There are definitely other factors, but they're relatively minor. IIRC variance in metabolic rate is +/- 250 calories at the most for example. So you can always compensate for them by eating one less chocolate bar.

>>37290161
Your metabolism is your total daily energy expenditure. Your TDEE is the calorie out portion of the equation.

TDEE = BMR+TEA+TEF

BMR: basal metabolic rate - this which represents the number of calories needed to sustain the basic functions of your body

TEA: thermic effect of activity - refers to all activity above and beyond basal levels

TEF: thermic effect of food - refers to the slight bump in metabolic rate that occurs after eating, due to processing and utilization of the ingested nutrients

You can’t gain bodymass unless your energy intake exceeds your energy output because you can’t make something out of nothing (muscle or fat).

The changes in overall body mass (increase or decrease) ultimately comes down to long-term energy balance which is represented by energy in (via food) and energy out (via metabolic rate).

>>37290196

From what I recall, its within about 10% either way for the average person.

Unfortunately, a disproportionate number of the people arguing against calories in/out are likely to be distinctly unrepresentative here. If you've blown out your metabolism by being a longterm fat fuck or repeated crash dieting or a bunch of other stupid mistakes there's a pretty good chance you'll be outside the norm.

>>37290161
People have in mind a simplified version of what calorie in/calorie out means. The equation in itself accounts for everything, as long as you don't forget anything.
>m.. muh thyroid
for instance actually changes your BMR, which is accounted for in the equation.

See >>37290035 and >>37288880

>>37290211
>blown out your metabolism by being a longterm fat fuck
Fat people haven't 'destroyed' their metabolisms, you can put them in a chamber to measure oxygen consumption and guess what? Their BMR will be predicted by equation for anyone of that given weight.

The variance in daily energy expenditure comes down to activity levels. Did you sit on your ass walking tv or mow the lawn? Did you have the pizza delivered, or chop up your vegetables by hand?

>>37290128
that's veggies for you and part of why you should eat them right there

I get that there are differences in how peoples stomaches process food, of which some are able to keep all nutrients, while some are not. I.E. a skinny guy eats 1000kcal, but diarrheas 500 out since his body can't process everything (extreme case), while fatty has an effective stomach and makes use of all the energy.

However 1000kcal can't magically become more than 1000kcal since that's physically fucking impossible, so if you're fat it's still just because you're overeating.