OK /fit/ settle this argument: Take two diets, both 3000 calories,

File: 1465092580392.png (25KB, 656x620px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 656x620px

>CALORIES IN CALORIES OUT
>LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
>A CALORIE IS A CALORIE
>TAUTOLOGY
>LOL DONT U BELIEVE IN PHYSICS BRO?

>>40984055
>same macros and micros
well technically yes, but obviously that's not really the case IRL; keeping your micros on point is what will help you stay "feeling" healthy, but you can certainly meat your daily macro requirements without exceeding your TDEE with junk, and your body composition won't be adversely affected, but your actual internal physical healthy might.
Especially if your carbs come from a lot of processed sugars, say hello to those insulin spikes, and enjoy your increased risk of diabeetus later in life

>>40984055
same macros and micros

all the bad shit from processed junk food would be removed and the only difference would be shape/texture of the food and the packaging.

>>40984055
kcals in > kcals out is a good premises for people to follow for cutting/maintenance/bulking. But only fucking mongs think it is really that simple. You will see much better results with clean eating.

>>40984055
does the processed food have enough nutrients or is it just sugar carbs and fat?

>>40984055
Diet 1 person would crave junk fold

Diet 2 person will be hungry all the time

Assuming they are nutritionally the same

Thats why you meet in middle

T. Nutrition/C-Sec double major

>>40984055
Your weight will most likely be the same but your health will not. You will get a lot of health problems if you have a lot of fatty foods like meat and oils in your diet. Also inflammation will differ a lot.

>>40984100

Besides having the same macros, they are nutritionally identical with regard to vitamins and minerals.

>>40984055
Junk food can make you unhealthy because of added artificial components, such as conservants and flavors. Clean eating isn't that hard and is rewarding.

>>40984055
there is no argument. unequivocally, the answer is that there will be a huge difference.

calories in/calories out is literally only relevant to WEIGHT gains and loss, not muscle gain and fat loss.food quality and macros are how you dictate the nature of that weight change.

>>40984055
Difference would be sharp spikes in insulin from the processed food and simple carbs present. Obviously processed food versus clean has a difference in things like glycemic index and glyemic load. Easier to just eat clean.

>>40984115
>C-Sec double major
How is Citadel doing officer

>>40984055
How can they have same Macros and micros when it is the micros that make the vegetables healthier you fantastic sperg

its not even really possible. You can't get protein from junk food without so much carbs that it will blow you well above your TDEE. if im eating at 2800 and blow 1100 calories on a big mac meal that has 50g of fat, 150g of carbs and 30g of protein, I only have 1700 calories to go to get the other 150g of protein i need that day and that just isn't fucking happening. ESPECIALLY from OTHER junk food. The dietary make-up of junk food means you don't hit your macros perfectly, and even if you did all the other shit will give you cancer.

>>40985380
At least it's not happening without taking in too many carbs - the sugar in the foods OP is describing will totally destroy your carb macro

>>40985380
Pork rinds are junk food and they're no carbs all protein and fat so is beef jerky

>>40985404
>Doritos, chocolate, doughnuts, hot dogs, etc.
There's a distinction between food that's a bit processed like a pork rind and junk food. That stuff is junk food.

File: no_allen.jpg (75KB, 400x315px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 400x315px

>>40984055
>processed junk foods
>same micros as Vegetables, fruit, eggs, nuts, milk

Your premise was flawed from the start.

>>40984055
So this thread is 17 replies in and nobody has said anything about the titties in OPs picture? That isnt your chest right?

>>40985458
Classic case of bitch tits. Definitely OPs chest.

>>40984125
that doesn't happen. Ever.

>>40984055
damn, this is a blue board, wear a bra m8 you can't show titties like that

>>40985469
Is this what GOMAD will do to weak men?

>>40984055
> gynecomastia.jpg

>>40984100
>sugar carbs and fat

sugar is a carb, anon

>>40984125
>>40984055

You are making an imaginary scenario that only has imaginary answer.

So technically the body composition will be same but since that will literally never ever happen the Diet 2) will look and feel like shit because he lacks all important micro nutrients and his arteries are FUCKED from all the saturated fats. Enjoy cardiovascular diseases.

>>40984055
>tig ol bitties

>>40984086
that was not the question asked

the answer is yes.

>>40984086

>Especially if your carbs come from a lot of processed sugars, say hello to those insulin spikes, and enjoy your increased risk of diabeetus later in life

And if you eat a lot of meat

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6389060
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4690061/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3942738/

>>40985913
I haven't seen that second study yet, thanks. Pretty hard to read but as expected plant protein is better than animal protein.

Also as others pointed out OPs assumptions don't make sense, even if fortified junk food is nowhere near as nutritious as unprocessed whole foods. There's more to nutrition than just vitamins and minerals.