Someone post scientific proof that the "calories in/calories

read the sticky and do SS+GOMAD

Its called thermodynamics

>>39494490
i was 100 kg and i lost 35 kg in 4-5 months i counted every calorie i ate and i lost that's all

>>39494490
It doesn't sound too good to be true.
It sounds like science nigga.

>>39494530
Them scientist are lying and getting me pissed

>>39494510
What about metabolism efficiency ?
Why does dnp help burning fat if it's only about calories in/out ?

File: 1393561976089.jpg (80KB, 600x522px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 600x522px

>>39494539
Learn your place retard

>>39494549
because you burn more calories while on DNP nigger

>>39494523
That sounds insane. I've lost about 20 kg in 5ish months. I'm pretty sure that's unhealthy.

File: 1479532564127.jpg (66KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 633x758px

>>39494523
What did you eat during your weight loss?

>>39494549
DNP raises your body temp you dumbass

Go read a fucking book

>>39494549
because the drug specifically targets adipose tissues and their associated metabolic pathways. the fat gets processed for its energy

>>39494564
>That sounds insane
Not that guy, but I lost like 25kg in 3.5 months because I had a 2000 calorie deficit everyday

>>39494568
i only eat bulgur (sometimes with chicken) and walk 5-6 hours on a day
also i drank lots of diet coke

>>39494604
*ate

>>39494602
Well good for you if you managed that, what was your maintance if your deficit was 2000..?

File: 3.jpg (664KB, 1920x900px) Image search: [Google]

664KB, 1920x900px

Look up pic of prisoners freed from concentratin camps. Small piece of bread and full day of hard physical labour makes wonders for weight loss

>>39494646
About 2800 calories

>>39494661
800 calories per day? I find that hard to believe. What was your diet?

>>39494691
Most days I fasted for like 20 hours a day, then after the fast I ate 200-300 calories worth of fruit, 300g of chicken and 500g of vegetables. Some other days I fasted for 20 hours and went to subway, had a 30cm sub (600 calories per sub) and some fruit.

>>39494539
Nice

>>39494568
DNP

>>39494728
Oh I see. I had fasts sometimes for a whole day. Not intentional or anything, just switched some medication I was taking and I didn't feel ''normal'' hunger for a few months until I got to around 85 kg.

File: trumpz.jpg (7KB, 299x168px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 299x168px

>>39494490
>"calories in/calories out" meme
nigger you mean physics?

You want proof the physics works?

>>39494568
get used to chicken breast, brown rice, and veggies.

If you want to lose weight, that's gonna be your life.

That, or cocaine.

File: 1477314033997.jpg (174KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 633x758px

>>39494797
>If you want to lose weight, that's gonna be your life
Why? So I have to eat chicken, rice and vegetables to lose weight or is it calories in/calories out? Which one is it?

>>39494786
Alright, I've always been a follower of the calories in/calories out thing, and I still am, however, I have a question, that's more a matter of biology rather than physics.

In my human bio class we did a lab, showing how different sugary drinks, and "non-sugary" zero-calorie drinks still contained glucose. Now while using a glucose test strip test, the zero calorie drinks with 0 grams of sugar said they had no sugar, but yet if you were to do an oxygen gas sensor test with an enzyme that uses oxygen and glucose to cause a reaction, then you'd see that in fact the drinks do contain glucose.

Now the point of this all, is an insulin release. If you were to consume something like a diet pepsi, it may say it have zero calories and zero grams of sugar, but yet your body would still have to absorb this glucose. And apparently, it has more concentration of glucose than pomegranate juice. So therefore your body would naturally release insulin in order to store the glucose as glycogen in adipose tissue.
Therefore, you could be consuming a zero calorie drink, but still be gaining fat, no? Maybe it is insignificant compared to having a sugary, calorie-filled drink, but wouldn't the body be attempting to store this glucose as fat, despite containing 0 calories?

>>39494914
It's calories in, calories out.

But if you're a fat fuck, that means you have a satiety problem and you like filling your fat gut with food.

This means that you have to eat foods that have a low caloric density. Do you prefer eating a whole chicken breast, or two hot wings?

The brown rice (and other complex carbs) are slower to digest, which will help you feel a little less hungry.

Veggies have very low caloric density so they're a good way to fill you up without eating too many calories.

Calories in, calories out becomes much easier with low caloric density foods.

Also, yogurt. Yogurt is your friend.

>>39494957
>biology rather than physics
biology is just applied physics. physics encompasses biology.

Everything about biology can be explained through physics, but the reverse is not true.

File: Uncoupler.jpg (56KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 800x600px

>>39494549
>In oxidative phosphorylation, the flow of electrons from NADH and FADH2 to oxygen results in the pumping of H+ from the matrix to the inner membrane space. This gradient of H+ can produce ATP by flowing through ATP synthetase in the mitochondrial inner membrane. Dinitrophenol disrupts the H+ gradient reducing ATP synthesis. Under these conditions, much of our food that we eat could not be used for ATP synthesis are we lose weight. However, too much inhibitor and we could make too little ATP for life. The difference between weight loss and death is only a small concentration change in dinitrophenol, making the drug dangerous.

>>39494986
Oh, you're one of those guys...

>>39494957
I think it's more of a matter of chemistry or biochemistry.

If zero calorie drink still have glucose then why are they recomended for diabetics?

>>39494957
The diet drinks use a sweetener that cannot be processed by the body.

They still have glucose but it is bonded with something that the body cannot digest.

File: farage.jpg (16KB, 607x342px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 607x342px

>>39495076

A calorie is a unit of energy. We tend to associate calories with food, but they apply to anything containing energy. For example, a gallon (about 4 liters) of gasoline contains about 31,000,000 calories.
Specifically, a calorie is the amount of energy, or heat, it takes to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit). One calorie is equal to 4.184 joules, a common unit of energy used in the physical sciences.

Most of us think of calories in relation to food, as in "This can of soda has 200 calories." It turns out that the calories on a food package are actually kilocalories (1,000 calories = 1 kilocalorie). The word is sometimes capitalized to show the difference, but usually not. A food calorie contains 4,184 joules. A can of soda containing 200 food calories contains 200,000 regular calories, or 200 kilocalories. A gallon of gasoline contains 31,000 kilocalories.

The same applies to exercise -- when a fitness chart says you burn about 100 calories for every mile you jog, it means 100 kilocalories.

>>39494986
Explain cell theory via physics please

>>39495158
Ok, so there's these things called atoms, right?

File: 7234_dd04.jpg (282KB, 900x649px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 900x649px

>>39495120
>drink a gallon of gasoline
>won't be hungry for the next 4 days

Nice

File: illspotya.webm (1MB, 450x234px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 450x234px

>>39495166
>Not doing the GOGAD diet

Never gonna make it

File: 620px-Stevioside.svg.png (20KB, 620x297px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 620x297px

>>39494957
Those artificial sweeteners are mostly glycosides, which are molecules consisting of a glucose molecule bound to another type of molecule. However, just because they have the ability to be reactive doesn't mean they read as glucose in metabolism.

>pic related, stevia
>see those three glucose molecules

File: plant-based-sweeteners-8-638.jpg (123KB, 638x479px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 638x479px

>>39495211

>>39494957
Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm a type 1 diabetic so any insulin release has to be manually administered by myself. From what you have suggested, you are saying that if I drank a Pepsi max and did not administer insulin then my blood glucose level would increase because you're saying it actually does have sugar in it.

I have done this test before, diet pop does not increase my sugar level. Why does my blood say there's no glucose in the sugar free pop, science man? Or if anyone sciencey wants to weigh in. genuinely curious.

>>39495233
see
>>39495100
>>39495211

>>39495184
Kek, that's nasty, poor bloke

>>39494728
I'd like to start doing this, any warnings I need to know before I do?

File: 1-s2.0-S0278691508002275-gr1.jpg (8KB, 341x263px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 341x263px

>>39495211
And there are a lot of studies on stuff like steviol not really doing much bad (if anything) to serum glucose and insulin.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691508002275
>In a clinical investigation of subjects with type 2 diabetes, Gregersen et al. (2004) observed a modest blunting of the postprandial glycemic response following a meal containing 1000 mg stevioside. However, more recent examinations have not provided clear evidence to support the previous results ( Ferri et al., 2006 and Jeppesen et al., 2006). In a three-month study of subjects with type 2 diabetes, Jeppesen et al. (2006) reported that fasting blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) were not significantly lowered by intake of 1500 mg/d of stevioside compared with placebo. Additionally, the incremental area under the glucose concentration curve following test meal administration at the end of the treatment period was also unaltered relative to placebo.

>Structurally, stevioside and rebaudioside A differ only by the presence of one additional glucose moiety on rebaudioside A. Following oral consumption, both are metabolized to steviol in the gastrointestinal tract (JECFA, 2005). Because of the similarities in the metabolism of rebaudioside A and stevioside, and the fact that both glycosides are contained in Stevia extracts, it has been hypothesized that rebaudioside A may have hypoglycemic and antihypertensive effects similar to those reported with stevioside consumption.

>>39494490
>scientific proof that the "calories in/calories out" meme actually works
First law of thermodynamics

>>39495331
>any warnings I need to know
you will know hunger. It goes away after a couple of hours. Drink water.

>>39494539
Now that's a reference

>>39494564
If you go from eating 8k calories a day to only 2-2500 cals a day. You are most definitely going to melt weight off fast

>>39495377
Was it worth it? Did you ever eat anything to stave off your hunger?

The problem with sweeteners is you fuck your body temperature up because it thinks you are getting a high amount of carbs/calories, so your core metabolism gets slowed down.
Leave the fingers away from sweeteners. just eat sugar.
http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/06/19/artificial-sweeteners-could-be-sabotaging-your-diet/

>Your body uses X amount of calories per day through metabolic processes and your daily routine
>If it takes in more than X in a day, it uses that energy to create fat reserves which can be used for energy at a later time in the event that it doesn't have enough caloric intake to sustain itself
>If it takes in less than X in a day, it uses the fat reserves as explained previously

it's that simple

figure out how much you should be eating and count your macros

File: journal.pone.0161264.t001.png (584KB, 2251x4347px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 2251x4347px

>>39495341
Oh, here, this should be accessible outside of institutions: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161264

>The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the scientific available evidence regarding the association between NNS consumption and metabolic diseases as well as the effects of NNS on glucose metabolism and appetite regulating hormones. The results indicate that the association between NNS intake and the development of metabolic diseases, mainly type 2 diabetes, is not clear. A common identified confounding factor in the observational prospective studies is adiposity. In addition, it is unknown if the NNS are associated with deleterious effects on glucose metabolism or appetite regulation. Based on the available evidence, an effect of NNS on glucose metabolism cannot be established. The study of appetite and its regulation is complex, the evidence presented concerning this issue is scarce and an effect of NNS in appetite cannot be demonstrated either. The studies found are varied regarding the NNS studied; therefore, a class effect cannot be determined and no solid conclusions regarding a specific NNS can be stated.

>>39495401
If it works for you, sure. You're going to have to learn to operate on a glycemic deficit, though.

If your job is very physically active or requires fine motor control on your hands you probably shouldn't do it.

>>39494743
>>39495381
I'm glad at least two of you retards are over 18

>>39494568
LESS

>>39494568
Pizza everyday, and now I'm bulking and eating pizza everyday.

File: 1473121582414.jpg (194KB, 800x1016px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 800x1016px

>>39494986
physic is just applied mathematics. Mathematics encompasses physics

Everything about physics can be explained through mathematics, but the reverse is not true

:^)

>>39495503
True. I never claimed otherwise.

Math > physics > everything

>>39495444
Well fuck...my job requires both of those things.

>>39494490
>62 replies

How can a weak troll thread like this be successful?

>>39495164
So atoms = life

Why isn't there life everywhere anon

>>39495503
I wouldn't really classify math with the other sciences. While physics, chemistry and so on are models we use to represent reality, math is more like a language used to help understand them.

>>39494490
google: "law of conservation of energy".

>>39494943
lol nice 5 datapoints

>>39494549
DNP prevents your body from absorbing some of the foods energy and it is released as heat in your body, thus the warning effect. As for metabolic efficiency everyone's metabolism is within ~100 Calories of each other's daily so it doesn't much matter and a TDEE calculator given your height, weight, age and gender should return an accurate result.

lol how is it too good to be true? it's about WEIGHT gain and WEIGHT LOSS, not MUSCLE gain and FAT loss.

Its generally true if you have a good macro spread, and do calories calories out

if you eat 2kcal of nothing but soda and only burn 2kcal youll probably lose weight due to insulin insensitivity.

So, calories in vs calories out is wrong, but is right if you have a good macro spread with it. Any macro spread and common sense will make it work. shit eating will always be shit eating

>>39494490
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

>>39495503
This is false. There are physical phenomena that are pretty much the axioms of the universe, that you can't explain, that just are.

File: 1383681485822.jpg (42KB, 552x464px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 552x464px

>>39496002
Oh shit, dropping the axioms bomb.

>>39495233
The test returns positive if there is a glucose like moiety in the solution. The zero calorie sweeteners are similar to glucose this is how they activate sweet taste receptors and hit positive on this test. However, they are not metabolizeable for calories by humans. Hence no rise serum glucose.

>>39495946
no, its right all the time. if you eat 2kcal of soda and burn 2kcal, you will stay the same weight. your muscle mass and fat will be affected, but the various processes the body uses energy for such as repair, breathing, digestion will be affected in som way to compensate. your body will change, probably drastically, but the number on the scale will remain exactly the same.

>>39495503
i have this friend doing civil engineering who actually thinks engineering is the superior science.

File: tmp_13019-Taubes why we get fat45596813.jpg (31KB, 338x500px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 338x500px

There's a lengthy explanation in this book of why it's bullshit (and for you stubborn nerds you can read Good Calories, Bad Calories which cites hundreds and hundreds of studies to embarrass this notion)... the human body is not a spring...

Citing the laws of thermodynamics is a glib oversimplification of concepts of physics erroneously applied to the human body at best and completely dishonest bullshit at worst.

The human body uses and stores away calories and macro nutrients in very very complex ways.

>>39496089
He's right.

>>39496047
That explains it better. So the point the guy was originally trying to make is irrelevant in this case because his suggestion that this glucose would be stored as fat from a 0kcal drink (insinuating weight gain is more than just in/out) wouldn't happen since that glucose is unable to be processed in our bodies?

Sorry if I'm dumbing it down but I need it on this level.

>>39496112
mathematics and physics piss on engineering. engineering borrows so heavily from these subjects that its barely any more than a specific, easy branch of both.

engineering skill is being able to tolerate building sites, give good presentations and be somewhat competent at the absolute bare bones of the most rudimentary maths.

If calories in/out works why do (post noobgains) people have to bulk? Why can't you just eat your share of needed protein and enjoy gains?

>>39496064
I'm pretty sure you'll die of malnutrition fairly quickly making any weight changes irrelevant.

>>39494490
It does, your body doesn't violate thermodynamics. The reason why weight loss is difficult is due to the body's response to it.
Total energy expenditure (TEE) is the sum of your basal metabolic rate (BMR), energy spent exercising (EEA), as well as energy spent doing things like digesting food and maintaining body temperature which is referred to as non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT).

While the NEAT is non zero I'll ignore it for this for simplicity sake.

BMR = 66 + ( 6.2 × weight in pounds ) + ( 12.7 × height in inches ) – ( 6.76 × age in years )
Lets say you're a 6 feet tall, 350 pounds, 25 years old. So your BMR is about 2981 Calories. If your goal is a healthy BMI, you'd want to be no more than 180 pounds. Doing the same BMR calculation for 180, we get a new value of 1927 Calories.

So if you diet and bust your ass to get down to that weight, then immediately return to the same diet/lifestyle as at 350 pounds, you're gaining 2 pounds a week when you would have been at maintenance before. Actually changing lifestyle is difficult and requires a great deal of time and energy that non everyone is willing to commit.

There's also a normal component to it. Leptin tells you to stop eating, ghrelin tells you you're hungry. Because leptin is synethizied by fat cells, the fatter you are the more desensitized you become to it. It's the same way that type 2 diabetes occurs, but leptin instead of insulin. Your cells are bombarded with so much chemical the receptors decay, and it takes a significant reduction in the amount of the hormone in order for the receptors to return to their normal distribution.

The two in tandem mean that when you're dieting not only will the reduction of Calories you need to keep losing increase, but your body will retain similar hunger levels as you were at a higher weight: often leading to failure.

I hope this helps, you can do it anon.
>We're all gonna make it

>>39496226
Auto correct changed hormonal to normal.

>>39496148
because the human body cannot gain purely muscle or purely fat. both come at the same time, just as both are lost at the same time.

efficient bulking for noobs can pretty much be what you describe - enough calories to produce enough muscle and strength to get through the next workout. after a while, the body doesn't want any more muscle because we need to chase shit and we're too lean for the amount of muscle we have. at this point, fat gain is necessary to push into the new realm of more muscle.

ever wondered why these fat boxer dudes don't just cut and add that weight back into muscle in order to fit in their same weight class? its because they have reached that limit already, and in order for more lean body mass to want to stay on their body, they need the extra fat.

>>39494490
let me pose a question?

Have you ever seen an obese African tribesman? Why do you think they are thin? Could it be, what they eat?

>>39496123
Yes the problem is user error. He doesn't understand what the test shows and what it really means. These zero calorie sweeteners will not result in any glucose in your blood. You poop them out without consuming them. The test is just telling him there is something there that looks like glucose, but really our body can't ever use it.


If you want an analogy look at cellulose and starch. Both are carbohydrates produced by plants which some creatures can eat. However humans lack the enzymes to break down cellulose, so we poop it out undigested. No calories in it for a human, but there are of course many other life forms that do eat cellulose. They can break it down and metabolize it for energy. Starch however humans can digest and metabolize for energy, like a potato for example.

>>39496233
obese people lead a very particular lifestyle - a diet whose calories come from shit not really found in nature in sufficient quantity such a refined sugars, grease, butter etc etc. african tribesmen eat natural foods - they eat clean, if you will. eating that much natural food's worth of calories isn't easy, so they are full before they can stuff thier faces that much. also, they don;t have that ability - massive surplus of food on demand is something only available to modern western people. also, tribesmen aren't totally inactive, whereas obese people are.

fat tribesmen do exist, most of them are a little soft. tribesmen however do not have the time or means to live the lifestyle which leads to obesity. they have shit to do, and they don't have enough of the right (well, wrong) foods.

>>39496089
As an engineer, your friend is fucking retarded. Engineering isn't a science, we use the sciences to solve problems.

>>39496264

9.9/10

Consume 15,000 calorie a day of clean food and then excercise as much as you want.

Report back on your weight loss.

(In the 1/10,000 chance you are not trolling me rn)

>>39496264
you sound like you're attempting to blame your fatness on societies availability of food. Instead, you should be blaming your lack of willpower and ability to know when enough is enough.

This is something lazy people do - "hurr, our society made us shitty sugary foods, that I have to eat! I have no choice but to be a fat slob"

Nah. You can eat whatever the fuck you want and still lose weight. Its total calories that matter. Not that it'd be healthy eating shit all the time, but still

File: topcat-reads-your-retarded-post.jpg (36KB, 580x417px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 580x417px

>>39495892

>penis size can vary from 1 inch to 10
>height can vary from 4ft to 8ft
>IQ can vary from 60 to 190
>strength can vary easily by 100%
>As for metabolic efficiency everyone's metabolism is within ~100 Calories of each other's daily so it doesn't much matter and a TDEE calculator given your height, weight, age and gender should return an accurate result.

>>39496232

You don't know as much as you think.

Both novice body builders and body builders on the right stack of steroids can gain muscle while cutting.

I assume you started from skeleton, bulked for a year (out of novice) and then did your first cut.

That's why you don't know this.

I cut as a skinny fat and I gained both lean muscle, looked much, much more muscular, and got down to 12% body fat by eating -250 per day and consuming enough protein

>>39496307
they've conclusively demonstrated that metabolic disorders like hypothyroidism contribute only a small portion of total weight gain in otherwise sedentary individuals.

Our human bodies are not unique. They all have the same organs, metabolic systems which use the same substrates to function. Expecting some gross differences in metabolic rate for similarly sized individuals with similar activity levels is idiotic. I'd love to hear your rationale for why you think our bodies systems can function wildly differently under normal circumstances

>>39496282
>>39496290
fucking hell chaps, you both missed the point of that post, did you read it? (srs)

i'm only pointing out the reason for the other guy why obesity is only seen in the west. we have time to sit around here and do nothing, they don't. we have the money and cheapness of food to buy as may biscuits, crisps, sugary drinks etc as we want. they don't have that kind of access. that's all i said. as for the burning off of 15000 calories - first of all tell me what the fuck that has to do with anything i said, then i'll humour you.

oh and btw, i'm 5' 11, 181lbs and about 12% bodyfat.

File: laughing fur.jpg (96KB, 684x534px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 684x534px

>>39496326

>I have the same organs and metabolic system as mike tyson
>I can eat what he eats, train like he does and I can look and perform exactly like mike tyson

>>39494539
Fucking calories, how do they work?

>>39496352
You took what i said and flipped it you ignorant fuck.

Take two fighters with Mike Tyson's height, body fat percentage, and muscularity, and activity levels.

They will have incredibily similar energy requirements

>Hurr durr a square is a rectangle, dat mus mean rectangle also squre? Hurr-fucking-durr? Right ? what fucking retird!_$?gasdjfljk

^literally you as you posted that

>>39496312
i didn;t mention roids because (no offence, but it was fucking obvious) they change all the rules and i have never done roids and don't claim to know exactly how. of course its possible if you start introducing lab-produced chemicals to fuck with the entire process, that's sort of the point of steroids.

also, nice try, but you're wrong. and, you;re wrong in your personal account of your weight loss as well. you ate in such a way that produced minimal fat gains and proprtionately great muscle gains. you ate at -250...fluctuations in metabolism etc etc meant that your body was adding weight a lot of the time since your TDEE/BMR moved enough to make the -250 on both ends of the maintenence pendulum. you gained muscle when your metabolism was low and lost fat when it was high, as is exactly to be expected from a beginner whose body welcomes all the muscle it can get.

eating at maintenence is literally this, except roughly half of the time you are on a microbulk and the other half you're on a microcut.

File: 4-chan-bait.png (128KB, 622x626px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 622x626px

>>39496400

>tdee calculator
>actually having BF% factored in
>implying they all don't vary wildly by 500 calories per source
>implying 2 people with the exact same height, weight and activity eating the same food will have the same body composition and muscle growth

>>39496307
It's a math model based upon a large subset of the population, if you don't like it become a Physiologist and make a better one.

>>39496453
>still not understanding what I am saying and flipping my words

YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE SAME BODY COMPOSITION ALREADY. THEN THE METABOLIC COMPARISON IS VALID.

I SAID NOTHING ABOUT YOUR POTENTIAL FOR MUSCLE GROWTH YOU UNEDUCATED FUCKING SWINE

>>39496479
calm down there, anon

>>39494490
thermodynamics