Is there any situation where calories in vs calories out

No. Even with moderate outliers accounted for CICO will always be king.

when you are dead, cant get fat when dead even if someone forcefeeds your dead body

General health which affects everything about you even your secret thoughts you never tell anybody

cico is and forever will be perfect that's why i live on half a thimble of bio-diesel per day

No, it just can be more difficult to calculate true calories out than you might expect. Small variations in body temperature can cause seemingly disproportionate rates of energy consumption, elevated heart rate and metabolism enduring after exercise is a variable sort of thing, the precise efficiency of your muscles in translating weight through space, whether just moving yourself or lifting weights, is a far more lossy process than the simple work = force x distance work function, and that loss is difficult to quantify between humans. Not to mention, it's possible to incompletely metabolize what you take in and excrete it instead, whether in urine or feces. Certain methods of measuring food's caloric content is also imperfectly comparable to the body's, leading to another margin of error.

So, calories in/calories out will always hold true, because thermodynamically it must. But until you can produce a personally tailored bio-accurate caloric content for everything you eat and wear a calorimetry suit, there's going to be a substantial margin of error.

So it's worth it to try overshooting, try undershooting, and a little exercise should make up the difference.

>>42014823
Thyroid issues.

>>42015040
Thyroid issues > laws of thermodynamics
you heard it here first

>>42014823
yes, cause it's not as simple as calories in & calories out. We all have different operating systems. they are similar but not the same. Thus it can never be as simple as calories in/out

anyone who doesn't understand this is fucking retarded.

>>42014823
skelly mode

apparently my TDEE is something like 2.7k cal

I make and lose gains fast, but no matter how much junkfood vs. activity, the worst i've been is mildly skinnyfat

so now I only eat the healthiest food, as much as i feel satisfied with, and don't care about "calories" or "macros" at all. nor do i care about "micros" because the healthiest food is always fresh produce

>>42014823
stamp collecting.

>>42014823
liposuccion

>>42015101
you realize that your "Operating Syatem" just changes your own "Calories Out"

It doesn't change Calories in vs Calories out

>>42014823
No but there can be many things influencing both sides. From incomplete digestion to a lower heart rate and body temperature there are a shit ton of factors, which is why it's near impossible to calculate. You can only experiment.

>>42015176
no, but the efficiency of each OS differs.
Fat slob might get more shit done with one calorie than Slim skel.

>>42016341
Fat slob is actually at the advantage here. He requires less food, but modern lifestyle has made him believe he needs to eat everyday, even 3 times a day + snacks .

hence he turns in an unhealthy fat slob

File: zoom on nose.jpg (235KB, 2047x1356px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 2047x1356px

>>42014969
quality post

>>42014823

No. I'm not sure if I'm quoting the correct scientific principle, but google "The Law of Conservation of Mass".

Basically, it literally CAN'T work any other way without violating the laws of physics:

The human body needs energy to run on. And there's literally only two possible sources for this energy: Food, and body fat. If it wasn't for body fat, you'd literally die of starvation in your sleep.

Similarly, in order to add body fat, your body requires raw material to work with. Literally the ONLY possible source for this is food that wasn't already burned for energy.

Now, that "Calories Out" number is affected by a LOT of things. Yes, even, in some cases, different types of food you eat. It is possible for certain types of food to "boost your metabolism". And similarly, there is such a thing as "starvation mode" where your metabolism can slow down if you cut too aggressively. But the effects of these are relatively minor and don't actually REVERSE CICO as some people think.

>>42014823

working the neck

>>42014823
>Is there any situation where calories in vs calories out doesn't apply?

No. Body mass is determined strictly by calories. Body composition and health is where things get complicated.

>>42016395
> he doesn't consume energy directly from the sun.

> (((Google))) "The Jewed law of Conservation of Mass"

>>42014969
Well put brother

File: 1418429066294.jpg (210KB, 500x562px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 500x562px

>>42014969
my man with the top tier post

>>42014823
the situation where humans aren't steam engines

>>42015111
I'm the same way, used to sit on my ass and inhale a bag of chips yet still be skinny, all the while drinking cola.

Now I just eat protein rich food until I'm full.

https://youtu.be/8BDHN2bY1bg?list=PL8_xPU5epJddRABXqJ5h5G0dk-XGtA5cZ&t=280

physics is the original shitlord

>>42016427
saucepls

>>42014823
yes when you fuck with your insuline.

>>42014823
Amputations.

>>42014823
Some sort of parasite in your intestines such as a tapeworm could be stealing your gainz and calories

>>42014823
post-gastrectomy

>>42014823

When your calories come from protein maybe. I knew a guy who did the Atkins diet 15 years ago and lost a lot of weight, but I don't know how much he was eating...

if CICO is true then why can't I eat a piece of plutonium and gain 100lbs of mass overnight?

fucking brainlets lol.

>>42014823
Yes, eating carbs will keep you fat even if you are in a caloric deficit

>>42014969
good post, but would the margin of error really be that substantial? For instance, someone who calculates their TDEE and is as accurate as can be counting the calories they consume, i'd think it would only be a dozen or so calories to the right or left of their goal, no? Even for someone who wings it I wouldn't imagine it to be more than 100 calories over or under their daily goal

>>42014823
>is there any situation where you can reverse the process of a dying star

thats what you are asking

no

>>42014823

No, but it's overly reductive. Tumors also follow the rules of cico, but that doesn't mean the man with a ten pound tumor should have eaten less and exercised more.

>>42017073
no

>>42017068
>2017
>Not replacing stomach with nuclear reactor

>>42014823
Calories in = Calories out
Calories in != nutrition
Calories in != mental health
Calories in != sexual health
There ya go.

>>42014969

>substantial margin of error.
lol

>>42015111
>muh 2700 cal maintenance
so this is the new excuse skeletons have?

>>42015137
That goes under calories out, ya doofus.

>>42015111
2700 calories is so easy to pass...

>>42014823
The answer is no. I can't believe fat people still think they can't get thin by not eating so goddamn much