>calories in >calories out I hate this meme

>>26148777
>>/tumblr/
original post coming through

/fit/ shitters ignore the second law of thermodynamics.

Cals in vs Cals out is 100% correct though.

How do I know this? Because when I actually track calories and stick to it religiously I lose body-fat really easily.

I've been fairly "Shredded" before (I've been lifting for about 5 years now) but once I stop tracking my calories and just eat whatever I feel like I start to get fat again.


So basically I know Cals in vs Cals out works, the hard part is actually sticking to it. By my "natural" appetite...I tend to stay around 20% bodyfat.....but if I track calories I can easily get down to 8-10% no problem. The issue is that I can't fucking stay lean without tracking calories and it sucks.

I envy every fucking cunt out there that stays lean without having to track anything - literally staying lean by default/natural hunger signals is something Ive never fucking been able to master, I've 100% had to rely on calorie/macro tracking to do it.

Genetically/naturally my bodyfat setpoint seems to be around 20% bodyfat, thats where my bodyfat basically pauses at without me tracking anything. I need to religiously track my calorie intake to get under that. Which sucks dick.

>>26148961
The second Law is helping you lose weight since being fat is a state of higher energy compared to being thin, as per the Einstein-Equation, therefore a fatter person has a lower entropy than a skinny person.

The entropy of all systems tends towards the maximum.

>>26148777
Op please disprove it then. You'll become famous you know. Oh wait you can't and you're just looking for and excuse so you don't have to better yourself

You don't burn many calories from sitting on your computer & reposting the same stupid thread every day, you fat fuck

>>26149009
Yeah I have to eat 1800 calories or less a day to loss 1lbs a week which isn't to hard I think I've been losing weight and I have diabetes my blood sugar levels have been perfect I've been doing this for 3 weeks now I find it hard to track everything though.

>Just ate a full chicken and large chips from Nandos
>Not fat

fast life.

>>26149081
The First, Second and Third Law of Thermodynamics disagree strongly with your statement.

>>26149112
cheeky

>>26149112
wait till you're in your 30s, buck

>>26148777
>fat acceptance

I hate this meme.

>>26149098
Yeah that's the issue.

I need to eat no more than around 1800-2000 cals per day to stay lean because im a fucking manlet, and that's even with lifting 5 times a week and doing cardio several times a week.


If I just let my natural appetite take over I can easily down 3000-3500 cals a day no problem.

>>26149145
Same I know it sounds stupid but it's hard I'm use to eating unhealthy and being a fatty (first world problems) but I really want to be healthy now I'm trying really hard at this going to the doctors more keeping on track with it I have social anxiety mainly because of my weight would love to at least look decent I want to go to university next year.

>>26149028
Your body would burn 100% of the calories if it was a Carnot engine. protip: It's not :^)

calories in =/= calories out, normie

>calories in
>calories in to the loo

File: 2056641388.jpg (108KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 500x334px

>>26149192
lelling at this post

>>26149133
I'm 31, mate.

As I said

fast life.

>>26149131
>The First, Second and Third Law of Thermodynamics disagree strongly with your statement.
Oh yeah? You think you're burning up a decent amount of calories just by sitting on your flabby ass? You see the thread you keep making? How well is it working out for you?

>>26149184
Yeah, it burns less than 100% of what you in and I can expend more than what you put in, but using the Einstein Equation to describe the internal energy U of your body.
Let's looks at a weight loss situation:
>Let there be two masses of a body, m1 and m2.
>m2 < m1
>therefore dm = m2 - m1 < 0
>therefore, as per Einstein Equation dU < 0.
>therefore as per dU = dH we can argue that weight loss is a spontaneous process
>therefore, unless you add net energy to the system, you will keep losing weight. Let Ee be the energy you expend and Ec the energy you acquire
>to lose weight Ee MUST be greater than Ec
>Ee > Ec boils down to the popular "calories in calories out", which is what had to be proven.

>>26149354
I'm 50lbs underweight, so I guess it's working perfectly.

It is correct, but is not proper dieting advice. It is a goal, not a plan.

I hate fat people.

>>26148961

The second law speaks for and not against cal deficit being effective you fuckwit.

How the fuck do u even get fat? Just eat actual food instead of garbage. Rice/corn/potaotes + beans/lentils + vegetables == EZ LEAN GAINS