Thread 76636393

Posted without comment

>>76636393 (OP)
Cico cultists not take an L challenge: impossible

>>76636402
The body burns calories. Energy used for digestion is part of your daily energy expenditure.
Whats your point?

>>76636393 (OP)
If my TDEE is 2300, and I consume 1800 over a period of time, regardless of where those calories come from, will I lose weight, yes or no?
No one gives a fuck about "but you can consume 3000 cal of pure protein and be 100 cal under 2200".

>>76636393 (OP)
This is such an abysmally small margin of error

what weighs more: a pound of feathers, or a pound of lead?

>>76636393 (OP)
i tried using this principle to lose weight and i ate 3lbs of chicken breast a day and it didn't really help reduce my appetite at all, in fact i think it made me hungrier for some reason. 1k cals of rice fills me up more than 1k cals of protein, no idea why maybe im cursed

>>76636402
CICO deniers not latching onto every scrap that helps them justify stuffing their fat faces challenge level: Omega Sunrise (Nuclear)

>>76636393 (OP)
>counting calories as opposed to counting specific nutrients
ngmi
>>76636479
That's because meat doesn't have as many carbs, and you need a bigger number of carbs than you need of protein to sustain the metabolism of most organisms.

>>76636393 (OP)
For optimal health you should be eating a balanced diet, somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/3rd of your calories from each: fat, carbs, protein. How efficiently your body processes the calories from each type is irrelevant, as you just find your TDEE and then move your intake up and/or down to reflect your goals.

Want to gain weight? Eat proportionately more of each macro.

Want to lose weight? Eat proportionately less of each macro?

Want to maintain? GTFO of here with that bullshit. Go tell lies on some other board.


Thus was solved any possible argument about calorie types, and yet this post will get (You)s attempting refutation.

>>76636393 (OP)
theyre both 100 calories, numbnuts

>>76636393 (OP)
What's ingredients are in the bread on the left? Does it contain HFCS? Looks like store-bought bread. Who doesn't bake their own bread in 2025?

>>76636393 (OP)
I dont think in numbers i think in words and it has improved my life drastically. I walk around with a pep in my step being able to philosophize so intensely that instead of jacking off to my own image I put on a hat and smoke a tobacco pipe so i can think about how id take myself on a date pay for the check and leave myself candles and roses and shit before making love to myself and getting myself pregnant.

>>76636479
appetite is dynamic, it adjusts to what you’re doing, people who don’t eat enough stop being hungry, people who eat too much are always hungry, it’s why intuitive eating is retarded and you should count calories at least roughly

>>76636393 (OP)
Id still rather a pound of steak than a pound of bread, just eat more steak.

>>76636402
Just set both of these numbers to 0% and continue. You’re dumb

>>76636459
It's a fucking stupid argument anyway. The "calories burned through digestion" contribute to TDEE, probably most significantly through BMR.

>>76636459
You'll lose weight no doubt. Question is, would you prefer to lose more muscle or fat? This is where protein comes into play.

>>76636851
Lol this

>>76636861
nta but it literally doesn't matter as long as you get 1g/kg lbm, the body is very good at converting between different kinds of protein

Actually, I'm not sure, but isn't most food calorie info already based around the fact different foodstuffs get metabolized differently?

or is it one of those things where there is no clear standard and anyone can say either without specifying?

>>76636851
>>76636875
I mean it's correct, but to be fair eating better is eating less as well.

>>76638872
Its not so

>>76636851
Eating better will directly lead to eating less.
Eat less = The what (non-negotiable)
Eating better = The how

>>76636393 (OP)
>does a kilogram (steel) | equal a kilogram? (feathers)
same logic

>>76640562
Not even close

>>76636472
your moms ass weighs more

>>76636393 (OP)
science

>>76636402
Cico deniers are a bunch of akshually tier fags, eating less (i.e. mathematically reducing your intake) will always work for weight loss.

>>76638863
Nah, calories are measured by literally burning the dried foodstuff to see how much heat aka energy you get from it. Keyword is bomb calorimetry.
Any effects that are different from this setup inside a human digestion system are not factored in.

>>76641086
Weird how that every single time somebody reduces their calories, they lose weight then.

>>76641265
Nta but if i had to guess it’s because it’s close enough to the truth, i guess, as in that it’s precise enough to be what’s needed for 99% of people to lose weight. Fatties, as always, will cope and seethe, but oh well.

>>76636393 (OP)
>10+90=100
>30+70=100
>does a calorie equal a calorie
what?

>>76636401
Kek I remember this pic from ages ago and remember these types in school. I wonder what came of all those kids with gages and all the other stupid low iq mutt bullshit they would wear.

>>76639257
You try eating thousands of calories of potatoes and beef. Go ahead faggot.

>>76636861
I prefer to lose fat when I am cutting, and I make sure I get 180-200g of protein a day, but that is irrelevant to "does consuming on a consistent bases several hundred calories under your tdee result in weight loss?"

>>76641424
Sigh

>>76636402
CICO is just an excuse to keep eating like shit
if you eat clean you don't need to count calories

>>76641404
what exactly is your objection here?

>>76641424
Nigga I got a 1 lb ribeye in my fridge that’s 1200 calories alone and you know I’m cooking it up for dinner. This meme of “buh is 2 filling” is awful, meat and potatoes make you fat END of story

>>76636427
The problem is the way calories on the label vs tdee is calories on label are calculated via burning which is not how your body does things.

>>76641557
Define clean

>>76641633
Explain how that's a problem. If you count the number of calories via packaging and you eat less than that, you will lose weight. That's like saying that physics is problematic because numbers aren't an actual real thing. The number is a representation of the value.

>>76641557
>if you eat clean you don't need to count calories
Not necessarily true

There is literally nothing wrong with good quality bread, people just need a bit of variation. I did a monk's diet for a while where I ate mostly bread, cheese and soup with some fruit and occasionally chicken or fish.

>>76636427
Hes asking if its better to eat a protein bar thats 300 calories, no sugar, etc. OR eat 300 calories worth of a Snicker's bar.
>protein bar for sure

>>76641675
non pasteurised animal products and seasonal fruits

>>76636393 (OP)
The human body uses fats, glucose, and fructose for energy. Protein is primarily used for building tissue. If it's converted to glucose, it's at some pitiful rate so it's barely an energy source. But because some jackasses decided to have fun with a bomb calorimeter, we're all talking about "protein having 4 kcal" when in reality it's more like 1-2 kcal when a realistic view of human physiology is concerned.

>>76638352
Gotta eat big to get big

>>76636393 (OP)
>>76636402
Post body.

>>76641559
Calorie is obviously a calorie. You can't just make calories disappear somewhere. If you are talking about macros and how they affect your physiology, thats completely different discussion from calories

>>76636393 (OP)
>>76636402
This has nothing to do with cico, if you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight regardless of what you eat.

>>76636393 (OP)
I don't understand this obsession with overcomplicating fitness, just eat less and move more and you will lose weight, just eat more and lift more and you will gain strength.
It's that simple.

>>76636459
Yes you will.

>>76642210
>I don't understand this obsession with overcomplicating fitness
Its very easy to hit a target weight if you know. I can literally change my weight anywhere from 130lbs to 200lbs. Thats the only reason really

>>76641557
Nobody that does cico has ever said that, ever.

CICO is fine but the problem is that we are at caveman levels of technology when it comes to calculating calories in or calories out

>>76642226
That doesn't mean you can't keep measurements consistently and act on those measurements. No matter how off the numbers are you can still change weight.

>>76642247
I'm not denying that is a useful strategy to lose weight anon. Just pointing out that we desperately need to understand the energy metabolism pathways in our bodies better.

CICOids need to hear it.
Burning calories does not mean burning fat.

>>76642490
>t. didn't read the fucking sticky

>>76642226
>we are at caveman levels of technology
Technologically? absolutely. Functionally? Nah. I can maintain my weight over 3 months within 0.5lb. i can also track and forecast my weight 8 months out on a bulk within 0.5lb. Once you can maintain, using a pedometer and a modified calorie equation. Adding/subtracting calories to your daily makes it tremendously predictable. The problem is, not being able to guarantee the weight put on is lean mass.

>>76642510
I don't disagree that with a stable diet, you can fit a line to data points. >>76642296

>>76642490
Once you burn enough calories, the energy needed will be taken from your bodyfat.
If you don't burn enough calories the excess calories are stored as fat.

>>76642024
So your contention is that you can't get fat eating animal products

>>76642226
We literally aren't and it's obscenely ridiculous how you could even remotely begin to say that with any level of sincerity.

>>76642493
>>76642560
Cope

>>76643037
>We literally aren't
We still calculate calories in food using a bomb calorimeter and some modest adjustments (Atwater)
And calories out is just completely hopeless, MET is garbage and we have no idea about digestion either

>>76643046
The appeal to a bomb calorimeter is overused, stale, and irrelevant, And your statement that calories out is completely hopeless is just flat out lying. A $70 smartwatch from China can reliably tell you in the ballpark of how many calories you are burning, doing activities via a heart rate monitor. Even if you wait only processed foods, you can reliably calculate your basal metabolic rate and look at the package of foods. And if you eat less calories, then you burn you will lose weight. You are being legitimately disingenuous or you are horribly misinformed about nutrition in general.

>>76643049
>The appeal to a bomb calorimeter is overused, stale, and irrelevant
Can you explain why?
>A $70 smartwatch from China can reliably tell you in the ballpark of how many calories you are burning, doing activities via a heart rate monitor
Sure, that works only for exercise, not for resting heart rates where it's impossible to tell what energy pathways are actually being used by the various tissue (because all of them satisfy the energy demands)
>you can reliably calculate your basal metabolic rate
Sure, even assuming you can, the above caveat still applies, and we don't know how many calories are burned digesting food
>And if you eat less calories, then you burn you will lose weight.
I agree. But our tracking of this is extremely caveman; you fit some points to a line then adjust your diet until that line predicts you're losing weight (see >>76642510 >>76642522)

>>76643052
Like I said, you're being legitimately disingenuous or you just have absolutely no knowledge about nutrition. Either way, I'm not interested in continuing this conversation due to the aforementioned reasons. I didn't even read your post.

>>76643055
>I was only pretending to be stupid
I accept your concession, I guess you can't even read

>>76641576
>END OF STORY
Im sure you’re used to this working in your low iq social circles but it doesn’t automatically make you correct btw

>>76641488
If you cant interpret a basic chain of posts that follow logically you shouldn’t post at all dumbfuck-anon, nobody moved any goalposts
Try reading that chain of replies again

>>76643335
The point was that it didn't follow logically. And if you can't see that, it's probably because you're so angry.

>>76642120
this entire thread is about weight loss retard-kun

>>76636459
yes. and then your TDEE will drop

>>76643921
Yes that's how homeostasis works. Point?

>>76641633
it's not
calories on the label take into account the usable net energy.

>>76636459
>period of time
do you know about any other periods that consist of something else than time? Can there be a period of 5 apples or 3 inches?

>>76643892
Its not so

>>76644990
Dude