We only take into account net calories that macronutrients will turn into after metabolism.
Problem is the steps our body follow to process differnet foods can burn more or less calories depending on source, per instance we don't really know how many calories we burn in the immune response to different pathogens in meat, depending on whether this meat is well done medium rare or raw.
tl;dr counting calories is moronic, just eat meat to satiation, fast regularily and don't listen to vegan trannies
beef is the healthiest food on the planet
carbs are survival foods, not staples
I don't know man I've been counting calories since I was at 272 and now I'm close to 200 so I'm pretty sure counting is working so I'm going to keep doing that
It's gonna rock your world to find out calories on packagings are just estimates anyway
everything is an estimate genius
you found a magic number that lets you lose weight when translated to how you count calories, that doesn't mean it's accurate, it just works for you
you could've done the same without counting calories and just roughly estimating portions
Regardless, it's super easy to lose weight when you avoid carbs as much as possible. In fact I struggle to eat enough for workout days.
The downside of low carb (at least while you generate adaptations to it) is you feel like shit after workout if you don't load on fat the day before, because fats take longer to metabolize than sugars, but it's the healthy way to build muscle.
When you do keto or low carb and trying to build muscle, you want your body to generate and store enough energy in the form of ATP in order to use it the next day, otherwise you will feel bad after exercise because your body is starving for energy and fat can't be turned into ATP at a fast enough pace to keep up with demands.
Yeah for me also is that it's a unit of measurement that we use for all species, we "know" how many calories animals are "supposed" to eat, but every animal digests extremely differently. Like, I'm sure a dog won't be able to extract as much energy as us from a sugary biscuit. But the biscuit is still 100 cals anyway
Exactly
Calorie counting works for me, I guess it doesn't fit you. But 2 out of 3 people isn't bad. Also if you come on here with a controversial opinion you better post body with timestamp not a picture of a fricking cow.
I will never submit to this board's ego wanking culture.
If you want fap material, go to pronhub
ok, fatty
sneed
> you better post body
he did
calories is energy
you have to eat a certain number of calories to not get fat because humans are biologically optimized to fast
how is this difficult to understand?
>Another 'calories don't real' thread
OP lies to himself every time he writes down his calories so now everyone should do Keto/Vegan/Paleo/whatever the frick this Black person is shilling.
Calories counting works great for the non-moronic portion of the human population. CICO is not defective, OP; you are.
>CICO is not defective, OP; you are.
bot is yapping bs exactly as he was told to do - nothing defective about fake robotized traffic here, well other than it being obvious, kinda poking u in the eye visible
eat animal foods like we've eaten most of our existence
pick and choose the plants you eat and eat them in moderation
why is this so complicated? city rats are so moronic
>eat animal foods like we've eaten most of our existence
Post body, fatty
Works on my machine
Why are you fighting on this hill, anon? I don't count calories either. I count grams of red meat, carbs, and organ meat, separately. I figured out how much I need of each through trial and overwhelming success. If I counted them by their listed calories instead it would have the same effect, which to say it would work.
the moment you said the word "metabolism", i knew you would be some keto carnitard moron
>beef is the healthiest food on the planet
what's the evidence for that?
It's literally written on the nutritional label. The only way you can deny it is by being scared of the four syllable word "saturated". That's a fear that should be easily quelled by looking at fat disgusting bodies of the people who share it.
oh so if something is nutritious it makes it healthy? ok eat meat mixed with cyanide, is a nutritious meal so it should be healthy
> The only way you can deny it is by being scared of the four syllable word "saturated".
yeah well saturated increases chronic disease
Does it? Does natural unrefined food really kill you? Should I eat the convienently cost effective ultra processed fats instead like the hideous medical journal pushers tell me to?
>saturated increases ((chronic disease))
evidence? gay WHO questionaire "studies" don't count
Saturated fat is only dangerous in a body which suffer from chronic inflammation, caused by gluten and other lectins. Not to mention tryglicerides accumulate like crazy when you eat carbs constantly, since you're barely using them for energy
Lee Hooper 2020
>Saturated fat is only dangerous in a body which suffer from chronic inflammation, caused by gluten and other lectins. Not to mention tryglicerides accumulate like crazy when you eat carbs constantly, since you're barely using them for energy
there's no evidence for any of this
I had higher cholesterol and tryglicerides back when I ate more grains than meat. If that isn't evidence enough for you, how about this:
>Dietary Lectins Cause Coronary Artery Disease via an Autoimmune Endothelial Attack Mediated by Interleukin 16
>https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/atvb.38.suppl_1.412
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25987403/
>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/apt.12360
those are all case controls and a pilot study and neither of none of them have cardiovascular event outcomes, i don't consider them evidence of anything, is just speculation
>not definitive evidence
same as what you just refferenced, except I've personal experience that keto/low carb is the only diet that helped me get my markers to a healthy range.
Additionally, it also improved my adhd to a point I don't need to use meds any more.
>same as what you just refferenced
i referenced a meta analysis if randomized trials which is the highest form of evidence in medicine, you referenced case controls which literally are bottom of the barrel evidence when it comes to quality of evidence
Again, I don't disagree that saturated fat intake is correlated with CVD outcomes, because most people also eat heavy carbs.
For your study to be useful it should've divded people into different categories depending on carb intake. As it stands, it only confirms what I already knew.
>Lee Hooper 2020
>Included trials fulfilled the following criteria: 1) randomised; 2) intention to reduce saturated fat intake OR intention to alter dietary fats and achieving a reduction in saturated fat; 3) compared with higher saturated fat intake or usual diet; 4) not multifactorial; 5) in adult humans with or without cardiovascular disease (but not acutely ill, pregnant or breastfeeding); 6) intervention duration at least 24 months; 7) mortality or cardiovascular morbidity data available.
Worthless, not a single mention to other dietary factors like macro composition.
Not to mention it's based on self reports
>2) intention to reduce saturated fat intake OR intention to alter dietary fats and achieving a reduction in saturated fat
> 4) not multifactorial
you have to do better than this, vegangay
>not a single mention to other dietary factors like macro composition.
the meta analysis shows evidence that when you start getting over 10% of your calories from saturated fat you start to see an increase in cardiovascular disease
>it's based on self reports
ok confirmed you have no clue what you are talking about, those are all randomized controlled trials not self reported data
>the meta analysis shows evidence that when you start getting over 10% of your calories from saturated fat you start to see an increase in cardiovascular disease
Again, not my point, it only takes into account a single variable. Not amount of carbs or what other foods they're eating.
I don't disagree with you that saturated fat is dangerous if you also eat heavy carbs with these foods.
>randomised trials can't take "data" from self reports
you are moronic
>Not amount of carbs or what other foods they're eating.
> if you also eat heavy carbs with these foods.
the study also shows a decrease in cardiovascular disease when you replace saturated fat with carbohydrates, it looks into that as well
>randomised trials can't take "data" from self reports
what data was self reported? go ahead and tell me
>the study also shows a decrease in cardiovascular disease when you replace saturated fat with carbohydrates, it looks into that as well
again I don't disagree with this, but it doesn't look into extremely low to no carbs and high saturated vs the rest of the spectrum
for it to be useful they should've only taken data from people following a low carb or keto diet, comparing between people who ate mostly monounsaturated fats vs people who ate mostly saturated
>what data was self reported? go ahead and tell me
the alledged nutrition people reported? or did they keep them in a room with no doors or windows feeding them a specific diet?
funny you should mention cyanide, some vegetables like cassava (also known as Yucca) can literally kill you because of high cyanide concentrations on their skin
you have to peel them, and then boild them to shit and strain in order to remove the cyanide
Tomatoes used to kill us before we domesticated them, but even today, eating too much of them daily can cause you arthritis
Green potatoes can kill you because of high solanine
I could keep going. Plants are survival foods, they aren't healthy for us in high quantities.
that's is all just mechanistic speculation, i ate cassava literally just yesterday and yeah it was cooked humans cook food that's a core difference between us and other animals
>they aren't healthy for us in high quantities.
plants are healthy in high quantities, that's what clinical trials on the mediterranean diet and the dash diet show and observational studies show the same thing in general
I don't disagree, as long as high quantities of saturated fats aren't present, eating plants is relatively healthy, but that diet isn't optimal for physical or mental health.
also
>mediterranean diet
get the frick out of here, I'm a med and we eat tons of saturated fats, most of my family died of heart attack or diabetes related issues
*Inaccurate*
Claiming a grievance of inaccuracy in any language should require some proficiency in said language, in my opinion. Beyond that, muscle groups do not have much standard nutrients beyond macros, yet the macros measured are fairly accurate in portions given husbandry methods, and what vegans say never matters.
you clearly understood perfectly so you're just stroking yourself off. also meat contains tons of micros
what OP has wrong is that calories are measured by burning a given food, not by calculating how much the body can extract and subtracting the energy required for digestion
> calories are measured by burning a given food, not by calculating how much the body can extract and subtracting the energy required for digestion
I thought that was the entire point of my thread. Calories consumed do not directly translate to calories gained
>We only take into account net calories that macronutrients will turn into after metabolism.
metabolism takes energy thus what you wrote means that we DO take into account that there is a difference between the gross energy in food and the net energy gained after accounting for the cost of metabolism. which is generally not true and people on this board don't really understand why. they say shit like "100 calories of oreos and 100 calories of chicken breast are not the same" which is true but you ask them why and they say "oreos bad chicken good what are u, dumb?"
Calorie counting can't be done accurately, even lab studies struggle with it. The endrocrine system is a very recent addition to medicine and it is very poorly understood which is why (midwit muhscience redditers) tend to look for simplistic equations like cico rather than accepting the reality that these things are currently not understood due to our lack of understanding of hormones, not to mention the digestive system.
This, brainlets prefer simple answers that will bring order to their world
>it's not 100% accurate therefore it's moronic and doesn't work
>I have never heard about tolerances or margin of error in my life
Genuine autism together with skipping math classes at school is one hell of a drug.
>carbs are survival foods, not staples
So survival foods aren't a staple lol. Imagine being this stupid
the differences are negligable, I bet you're fat.
wow you must be really ripped and shredded if you've found the secret that no-one else knows about. Surely you'll post body to prove this?
None of these "CICO doesn't work" posters will EVER post body. Because they're delusional fatasses who latch onto every meme diet that comes along.
The real secret is eating the same foods every day and then changing the weights of those.
>it's not a perfect system so it's useless
Baby's first unicorn fallacy, thinking he made some devastating point. Lmao. Lol even
inaccurate*
moron
>calorie counting? inaccurate
>eating until I don't want anymore? works fine
Your master plan works for people that are already lean, the problem of fatasses is that they cannot draw the line
>Unaccurate
ESL OP. Post disregarded.