>calories in, calories out

>>41846861
scientifically, it's false but doesn't mean it's a helpful approximation because the conversion is more or less equivalent in most cases.

>>41846861
What goes up, must come down
> post graphic detailing gravity
Wow thats confusing so it must mean my statement was wrong

>>41846861
>fat faggots looking for an excuse to give up
Just go eat yourself into an early grave and don't bother us anymore, loser, at least then we don't have to listen to your whining anymore.

>>41846861
C O P E
O
P
E

"Calories in, calories out" is the nutrition equivalent of Newtonian physics. 99% of the time it's close enough. OP's pic is Einstein and beyond ... not necessary unless you're a professional (in this case a doctor or biologist or some shit).

>>41847324
This. For an overwhelming majority of the population, CICO not only is true, but is nearly the entire story of their health. For the rest, they already know what to do because their position demands that they know.

>>41847324
>>41847340
ok boys now admit the same for BMI and we are there

>>41847394
BMI treats muscle and fat equally. Simply retarded. BF% or waist-hip ratio would be a better marker of health.

File: Johannes_Stark.jpg (81KB, 280x396px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 280x396px

>>41847324
I get your analogy but Newtonian physics isnt just "close enough".Its a perfect model in the macrocosm (thats what engineers use), and totally wrong/useless in small scales thats why its replaced by QFT.

>>41846861
I have this poster. It's really fucking big. Learned a lot of it for med school, but have forgotten 99% of it now, kek

>>41847438
lol youve discrdited your little theory in calories too now.

have a nice day :)

>>41847491
How relevant is a lot of what you learn in need school outside of your residency?

>>41847539
Med school*

>>41846861
This one graph disproves atheism in one fell swoop.

File: 1457807158249.jpg (30KB, 489x520px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 489x520px

>>41846861
>Dildos in, Dildos out

>>41847394
BMI is effective as a quick and dirty way to assess someone's weight even if it's kind of off for taller people. It's only thrown off severely by roiders. Natties don't have enough mass and any way any competent lifter should know their body and overall health science enough that BMI is no longer valuable for them to even track.

>>41847536
CICO is for weight loss, not health.

Also, fat grams are more calorie dense, not equal

>>41847564
The calories go in, the calories come out. We can explain that.

>>41847618
This is 100% wrong.

File: nattybananaingredients.jpg (169KB, 654x997px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 654x997px

>>41846861
>body needs atp for all cellular functions
>cellular functions don't happen without atp
>atp comes from transportable and sortable caloric sources like lipids and glucose and to a degree amino acids (via direct oxidation or via conversion to glucose via gluconeogenesis)
>it's literally a matter of calories, measurable on paper - no magic, hormones, feels, keto, metabolism change that
>not calories in, calories out

>>41847459
newtonian physics does not account for the warping of spacetime due to special relativity, if spacetime was completely unaltered then newtonian physics would be completely accurate but to correctly predict the positions/speeds/energies etc of extremely high-speed or high-mass objects such as light or black holes then newtonian models are not true to life. you're correct about quantum physics becoming more and more relevant at sub-atomic scales though.

>debating quantum physics on the fitness section of an indonesian basket-weaving internet forum

>>41847564
>things are complex
>so the only explanation is that a being created them
>there is no possible way a complex, unsupervised system of interacting molecules could develop over billions of years and trillions of life forms to create a complex, self-sustaining system, oh no

File: massacre time.jpg (59KB, 824x820px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 824x820px

>>41846861
Calories in, calories out is true. That is just physics but to say that someone is fat because they are taking in too many calories and not burning enough is a vast oversimplification. This would be like if I went bankrupt and when I was explaining why I went bankrupt I just said, "Well, I lost more money than I earned." Well fucking obviously, but It doesn't address the innumerable amount of underlying reasons that could cause me to lose more money than earn money. The same holds true to losing and gaining weight

File: elf okay.png (62KB, 297x369px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 297x369px

>>41846861
>people post shit like this and claim it's why they don't lose weight

>>41847564
wait, what? no it doesn't. It doesn't do that at all.

>>41847784
Yeah I forgot special/general relativity was a part of physics for a moment there.
These engineering exams are getting to my head man...

>>41847618
You are wrong, firstly BMI sucks even for use with normies, if you really need to measure body fat as a clinician you need to use calipers. BMI is just lazy and inaccurate. And you are wrong about the roiders, yes they prove BMI "wrong" but they are only a smaller fragment. Most of the people who BMI is wrong for are people who fall into the normal weight category but are metabolically obese, basically skinny fat, no muscle and a ton of fat but they are still have a 'healthy' BMI. MONW. These people are much more common than the occasional michael phelps who's "overweight" or the marathon runner who's "underweight."

TLDR BMI is more likely to classify skinnyfat metabolically obese people as normal weight/healthy than it classifies athletes as underweight/overweight/unhealthy

>>41847539
The biochem and cell bio shit? Marginally. You don't need to have all the enzymes in the CAC memorized to manage a kid with croup, or balance fluids in a dude with CHF and AKI.

>Calories in, Calories out

what they forget to tell you

>The composition of what you take in also effects how much goes out

>>41847438
>>41847618
>>41847618

BMI's used to measure entire populations, not individuals; in that regard, it's mostly reliable.

>>41848012

Define metabolically obese. Your pointless counterargument fails to address and reject the premise on the basis of so called "metabolic obesity" which makes little sense as you describe it.

>>41848638

>I took a sophomore statistics course.

>>41848696
Well I wouldn't say he's wrong m8. It was originally intended for general
Population statistics anyway, and then high school educated gym coaches got their hands on it.

>>41847459
If you're still around, anon, then you should know we use QM in EE. Not extensively (unless your in research), but a bit in transistors

>>41846861
You could write a 3000 page textbook on how gravity really works, but the fact still remains that if you drop a ball it will hit the ground.

>>41847935
If you haven't finished all your engineering physics yet you can look foreward to calculating space and time dilation at relativistic velocities somewhere around the end of physics 2.

>>41846861
>Hess's law is an illuminati conspiracy, pls fund my overunity crackpottery

>>41847811
I'm actually religious, but doesn't it make more sense that an unsupervised system would make something so complex, as a God would wish to make it as simple as possible, so it can be closer to perfection?

>>41847293
this. op is a FAG