A Calorie is not a calorie

>>35166361
>BlLLlONS of different bodies gIobaIIy
>These 14 peopIe prove how EVERYONE wiII react to a short diet

>Not just prepping your food in a heaIthy manner and working out / cardio with a good sIeep regiment

Fucking stupid thread, OP.

>>35166396
The irony of posting that while telling everyone to do one size fits all lifting and dieting in the sticky.

>>35166396
According to many /fit/izens they all should have lost weight as obese people on a 1000 calorie diet, because THE LAWS OF THERYMODYNAMICS YOU CAN'T BREAK THOSE NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE JUST EAT LESS FATASS. Yet this experiment suggests that the body does not treat all calories the same and trying to solve a problem of biology with physics is not effective which completely undermines CICO.

Defend this

>>35166361
Interesting, does this mean keto is not a meme diet after all?

>>35166496

If you actually dig into the cited study, you'll see this is nowhere near as definitive as OP seems to think.

>>35166511
Please explain

>>35166435

Well people in 500 1000 1500 calorie diets lost weight with balanced macros. We dont tell people to only eat one, and if we do its protein where people lost weight anyway. It is interesting people who only ate carbs didnt lose weight even eating 1000 calories. Probably has something to do with taking a dump.

>>35166435
>According to many /fit/izens

Which are just a bunch of dyeI rejects from \b\ and \v\ that make shit up to sound Iike they know what they're doing.

>Iistening to anons instead of actuaI peopIe who aren't out to troII you with a key board

Good going.

>>35166517
PIease read

>>35166553
...Are you fucking with me anon? I'm asking you to explain to me what about the study makes it not as definitive as you say it is because I've actually looked up the study on a database, read it, and it seems pretty well done which is rare for nutritional studies.

File: 1320468651228.jpg (11KB, 250x202px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 250x202px

It controlled for water INTACT, not water weight

fucking kuck retard.

>>35166596
It was controlled for both idiot.

"further water retention / loss was measured and accounted for to get a real view of actual (non-water) weight loss."

>>35166585
To add to that, if anybody has the names of similar studies where diets are controlled for energy intake (calories) but the ratios of macros are changed under strict surveillance I would like to know. I am trying to consider all of the relevant research.

>>35166585
>Come to your own concIusion if you feeI that way

And you're done.

>>35166640
Can you shitpost somewhere else please, I'm actually trying to get to the bottom of this Calories In Calories Out thing. Thanks

>>35166640
Not him, but you sound like an insufferable twat.

Point out a specific criticism.

>>35166361
The idea that it's impossible to gain weight on a calorie deficit is the biggest load of bullshit that /fit/ clings to.

File: 1442516998588.jpg (128KB, 660x495px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 660x495px

if fatties used 1/10th of the mentall will they use to proove that they gain weight on callorie deficit to actually work out there wouls be no doubt.

no doubt. mmm gwen stefani.

>>35166658
>Can you shitpost somewhere else

This is the current shit post thread, according to the shitty O P Iink. You got good advice. The rest of this is stupid.

Why do you fatties come here and try to convince us that we are wrong? We know we are right, we have done the research, the actual physical research. We know how many calroes we need and that calories in calories out works because we have done it, and not done it, and tried different diets, and been hungry, and been full. Each of us has years of first hand research. We have run the miles, lifted the weights, and prepped the food. This isn't some conspiracy to shame you for being fat. We aren't all in on the joke, there is no joke, just the truth.

No obese person ever gained weight on a 1000 calorie a day diet. The person who wrote this article is a liar, plain and simple.

They did a poor job of measuring water retention. There should be a lot more variation that what they're accounting for. Also with muscle loss. I wouldn't mind hearing what method they used for all this.
The high carb intake would account for more glycogen storage, and the would cause the potential weight increase despite losing some fat. Low fat diets and crash diets can also lower T3 levels and also make you retain more water.
Plenty of additional reading and studies here.
http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss/
Lyle Mcdonald also has a good article on the matter with a lot of physiological explanations.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/is-a-calorie-a-calorie.html/

>>35166698
/thread

You morbidIy obese newfaggots are just using shitty Iinks to argue and compensate for your Iaziness.

>>35166698
>No obese person ever gained weight on a 1000 calorie a day diet.
If you'll look at the study you'll see you're wrong and some of them did gain weight on a 1000cal diet.

What is the lesson here? Don't buy into memes posted on a chinese cartoon image board. It's entirely possible to gain weight on a deficit

>>35166709
This. Also, from the bottom of OP's article;

>“In such a study the difficulties are formidable. The first and main hazard was that many of these patients had inadequate personalities. At worst they would cheat and lie, obtaining food from visitors, from trolleys touring the wards, and from neighbouring patients. (Some required almost complete isolation.)”

File: 1420410538388.png (8KB, 473x500px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 473x500px

>>35166632
>quoting a popsci article
>not quoting the paper
>because you didn't read it
>because you're a C U C K
faggots don't provide a proper source, the closest they came was to claim the study was published in The Lancet in 1957, quite a feat given that neither Kekwick nor Pawan had anything published in The Lancet in 1957.

Further, we can trivially deduce that no such measurements were taken, as the technology to accurately measure body-water didn't exist at the time. Oh my.

File: 12310591_200261250308018_2969595887752702906_n.jpg (115KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 960x960px

>>35166748
Your smug pepe and smug post make me invision a naked Pepe doing a tribal dance around a defeated Wojak, chanting "Poo Poo Pee Pee" as he relieves his bodily fluids on Wojak.

>>35166728
>herp derp I believe everything I read in peer reviewed articles!

Fuck you. I'm a fucking scientist. Most scientists are idiots. The people who get funding for projects are idiots, they come up with horrible ideas and draw far fetched conclusions from limited data sets. You can cherry pick a study that will tell you anything. Tons of scientists in the past used to claim loudly and with much gusto that smokeing was healthy.

You're fat and lazy. You are stuck in a negative feedback loop. The fatter you get the lazier you get the fatter you get. If I met you in a bar I would make fun of you, take you home, make you put a bag over your head and oink like a pig while I fist fucked your asshole. You are so desperate to be treated as a human being on par with us that you would be greatful for even the abusive physical contact I would give you.

You will find no love here.

Even fat people deserve to be treated as human, but they seem to think being treated as human means I'll treat you as a good human. I won't treat you like a dog. I won't kick you, hit you on the nose with a newspaper, but I also won't treat you like you're a high value person because you're not.

>>35166770
>You're fat and lazy. You are stuck in a negative feedback loop.
Nice projection but I'm less than 12% body fat. Fact is /fit/ is dead wrong. The human body is not an unchanging monolith that fuel enters and burns at a constant rate. It's always been possible to eat at a deficit and gain weight, and always will be.

You're a fucking idiot OP. The obese people were monitored for ONE FUCKING DAY.

Put anyone on a 1000 calorie diet, be it purely sugar, protein, or fat for a week and I'll bet you all my money that they will lose fucking weight.

>>35166795
>eat at a deficit and gain weight

By definition that is wrong, as a deficit is the amount needed to lose weight. If you're eating at a deficit and gain weight, it's a surplus.

>>35166811
>as a deficit is the amount needed to lose weight
Shifting the goalposts much? A calorie deficit is not defined that way and never has been. A deficit is the amount of calories below the amount your body is using each day. It's possible to gain weight while taking in less energy than you're expending because of hormonal imbalances

File: 1344226240503.jpg (22KB, 272x274px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 272x274px

>>35166825
>It's possible to gain weight while taking in less energy than you're expending because of hormonal imbalances
over-unity hormones?

>>35166825
That doesn't make sense. Please explain. How does the process work?

>>35166860
What you put in your mouth isn't the only source of energy for the body

THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY IMPLIES THAT IF YOU EAT LESS IN CALORIES THAN YOU BURN IN CALORIES YOU WILL LOSE MASS UNLESS YOU RETAIN ENOUGH WATER/NON-CALORIC MASS TO COMPENSATE FOR THE MASS THAT WAS LOST BY BURNING CALORIES.

THIS IS A PHYSICAL FACT.

>>35166867
Where does it come from?

>>35166825
>because of hormonal imbalances
Hormonal changes can manipulate water weight. They don't significantly alter fat loss within natural levels. Even most people with hypothyroidism lose about 5-8lb in waterweight, and close to no fat loss.

You guys do realize that you're conflating energy and mass, right?

>>35166880
BTW NON-CALORIC MASS DOES NOT INCLUDE FAT OR PROTEIN OR CARBOHYDRATE DEPOSITS.
IF YOU EAT A CALORIE DEFECIT, YOU WILL LOSE MASS IN THE FORM OF FAT AND/OR PROTEIN AND/OR CARBOHYDRATE DEPOSITS. THIS IS UNQUALIFIEDLY TRUE.

>>35166893
The energy that your body requires to function comes from food and massive stores of chemical energy in the body. When that chemical energy is released, that mass is at least in part reduced (at the very minimum this is true because of relativistic considerations about the equivalence of mass and energy).

>>35166361
>sample size 14

>>35166361
>what is water weight
Fucking dumbass

>>35166361
>55 year old research
>Completely fucked up diets no one not living in a post-apocalyptic hellscape would eat

Why the fuck is anyone arguing with this? It is beyond stupid to think it's legit.

DID they control for water weight? I would think a body that eats 90% carbs would desperately hold onto water since it no longer has enough fat to maintain venal elasticity and no longer has any protein to repair damaged cells.

>>35166511
>OP
>thinking
He posted this thread so you'd think for him, because OP can't into nutritional science.
This >>35166517 is probably OP.

Study only measures calories in. It did not track calories out

>>35166665
>>35166795
>>35166825

This is what the people telling you to "eat clean bro" and think SS makes you fat actually believe.

>>35166905
>If the body worked exactly like that we would have all died out before the line of creatures that started the line that would eventually become humanity would have died out a LONG ASS time ago.

I don't know what you're trying to say, but it sounds to me like you forgot to account for the fact that the earth gets its energy from the fucking sun and decided to come up with some pseudo-evolutionary miracle theory instead.

>>35166361
>14 people
>no control
>ridiculous macro ratios

Who created this study? First off, before I even go deeper, you cannot compare this study to the supposed "one size fits all" approach in the sticky. Why? THE CRITERIA WERE NOT MET. Firstly, it's one ALGORITHM fits all, not one plan. It's actually dangerous to eat so far below your maintenance and can cause stalling because your body tried to preserve itself, which is why the algorithm strictly accounts for your current weight. Secondly, the ratios are extremely far off. The ratios exist for a reason, which is to provide the body with the actual nutrition it needs to work at its optimum. Thirdly, weight loss is affected by genetics. You need a much larger group. Genetics does not affect weight and genetics does not change the laws of physics, but genetics does affect how fast, where, and what parts of your body get smaller. Were the fatties put on a strict maintenance diet beforehand to match their metabolisms? Were the fatties the same bf%?

This study is so badly controlled that you can't conclude anything about calories themselves. The only thing you can conclude, ironically, is that 99% of people will lose weight following the concept of energy in energy out no matter how ridiculously far you skew your calories.

I'll have you know outside of tumblr I've never met or seen or heard of a single person who claims calories in calories out doesn't work. All fatties claim weight regain is inevitable, which implies weight loss is guaranteed.

Stop with your fat embracing, and limit yourself to fat acceptance like the rest of the world who doesn't browse tumblr

>>35166910

Still, conservation of energy does not apply directly

>>35166361
Once again, more proof that keto/low carb works best.