Calorie cap?

is that guy gonna be ok?

Read it

How about you post the article since it's behind a paywall?

Anyway, based on the small snippet I can tell you that increasing exercise isn't the easiest/best way to create a calorie deficit - diet restriction is the way to go.

Calories are a rule of thumb, kind of like most of life. It's not a black or white situation cause life is full of unexpected shit.

You can eat nothing for a week with a 4000 calories TDEE and lose maybe 1 pound instead of 7.

You can eat 10k calories a day with a 3500 TDEE for a week and you might only gain a pound instead of 14. You'll shit most out.

The body regulates itself and maintains homeostasis. Weight control, strength, and many other body functions are convincing your body towards a new homeostasis level which takes a lot of time and convincing.

>>40345922
It says that active people burn the same amount of calories as sedate people

>>40346018
their base metabolic rate is the same, yes

but the calories/energy they expend throughout the day and during exercise are completely unrelated to their BMR

>>40346011
>10k calories a day with a 3500 TDEE for a week and you might only gain a pound instead of 14
No.
>You can eat nothing for a week with a 4000 calories TDEE and lose maybe 1 pound
No.

Scales aren't 100% accurate for measuring fat loss or gain because of other factors like hydration, bowel contents and glycogen reserves.

Short of one-in-a-million genetic defects or conditions or borderline insane shit like stuffing yourself with 10 heads of lettuce at once, the disparity between what the "calories in - calories out" rule predicts and the actual effect is about 5% at most. If you think that excuses someone for being morbidly obese or malnourished, then I really don't know what to say.

TL;DR "Calories in - calories out" is not 100% accurate, the body is more complex than that: but for 99.9999% of people it so good an approximation that deviations are smaller than errors in measurement. It's like using classical mechanics instead or general relativity or quantum mechanics to to design a house.

File: Fatties are too stupid to count.png (440KB, 921x741px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 921x741px

>>40346149
to wit

>>40346034
In the article they used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubly_labeled_water
To calculate the energy expenditure of highly active people in hunter gathere cumminities.

The tl;dr conclusion of the article is that a highly active body spends about the same amount of calories in a day as a generally passive one does; "you can'´t outrun a bad diet" as they say
It does make some guesses as to how this is possible but it's pure conjucture as far as I can tell.

>>40346473
Yeah that's bullshit I used to eat literally 2x as much when I was an athlete

>>40346473
So no matter how much you move you still use the same amount of energy? Yeah, that is totally not retarded.

What happend was probably:
>people get roughly the same amount of food
>some are sedate and even out at a relatively high BMI.
>some are active and even out a relatively low BMI.

>>40346473
if you are saying what i think you are saying, that is incorrect

UNLESS, the highly active body eats enough to offset the amount of energy they have spent

i.e. Passive person spends 3000 calories in one day, and eats 2500 meaning he spent 500 calories in total

While active person spends 6000 calories, and eats 5500, meaning he burnt 500 calories in total

their energy loss for the day is the same, sure, but the active person is still burning more actual calories

>>40346018
>it's another episode of "fatties are simply natures perpetual motion engines"

>>40345913

he died.

>>40348207

There is truth that your bodies BMR shits itself after you starve it. After going through a starvation diet for long enough, your bodies hormones dont respond very quickly to the new norm

>>40348459
>your hormones need time to catch up to rapid weight loss, which mostly affects hunger and energy levels.
>you can make energy out of nothing and your body isn't a very delicate machine with tight tolerances for energy consumption.
There is a colossal difference between the two.

>>40348491

desu, I am not sure how long it takes to fix your bodies BMR after crashing it through a starvation diet to no longer be a certified as a anchor for a boat. The best way to solve the fat crisis, is just to not let kids get fat at all.

>>40348516
Again:
Your metabolism doesn't change that much during or after a diet. Unless you are literally on the verge of death, it slows down by 5% at the most. You can't just turn off 10 or 20% of your cells to save energy, you can't lower your body temperature to 30 degrees, you can't shut down your brain or digestion or breathing. All that shit makes up the vast majority of calories you burn.

The temporary instability in hormones simply means you are hungrier and more tired. Tough shit, you simply have to stick that out until your hormones stabilize.

Of course you burn less calories after a diet, but that is down to there simply being less of you, there isn't much of a metabolic slow-down like fatties imagine. And you don't "bounce back" - you can increase your TDEE trough exercise and increasing lean mass but a 200lbs person isn't going to have the same BMR as a 500lbs person, period.

>>40348459
>here is truth that your bodies BMR shits itself after you starve it.
You seem to be confusing specific metabolic rate and BMR.