WHAT DOES THIS MEAN BROS?

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN BROS?

1. 1 month ago
Anonymous

It averages out.

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

does it?
my first job ever was at a factory, scooping chemical powder into little bags that were then used for further processing in the manufacturing process.
i cant remember the exact numbers, but lets say i had to scoop 500g into a bag, i'd get a tolerance of 20g or whatever, so i can actually scoop anywhere between 480g and 520g into the bag.
but i'd always go for the minimum, in this example 480g, and my supervisor encouraged me to do this too because it saves resources

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

Yes it does. Your factory isn't the only food source nor did everyone working there always give a shit about your supervisor's words.

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

This reminds me of that. My last two boxes of protein bars had five beers instead of four..

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

Yes it does. Your factory isn't the only food source nor did everyone working there always give a shit about your supervisor's words.

COPE LMAO
You don’t know what the frick you’re slopping down LOL

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

No it doesn't. Every company always tries to run production towards the minimum of their tolerance to save a penny.

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

>Every company always tries to run production towards the minimum of their tolerance to save a penny.
It's up to the line worker ala

does it?
my first job ever was at a factory, scooping chemical powder into little bags that were then used for further processing in the manufacturing process.
i cant remember the exact numbers, but lets say i had to scoop 500g into a bag, i'd get a tolerance of 20g or whatever, so i can actually scoop anywhere between 480g and 520g into the bag.
but i'd always go for the minimum, in this example 480g, and my supervisor encouraged me to do this too because it saves resources

It averages out.

Is correct mostly. You are essentially fitting a function of calories in - calories out = weight change. Weight is easily measured, and calories in and calories out are estimated from "fixed" parameters with margin of error. Calorie counts can be +/- 20%, and even if they don't perfectly average out because they are biased quantities (for whatever reason, say most of your food is actually averaging out to -10%), you can adjust the "calories out" side of the equation to compensate based on your weight delta. Some trackers like MacroFactor (absolutely insanely good app) does this automatically and adjusts your intake calories based on your regular diet; so if you calculated an averaged-out intake of food, and it was actually -10%, the app would adjust by adding that +10% calories back based on theoretical vs actual weight change.
It's a simple equation and lots of data points, so margin of error can be quite large and unbiased and it would still be easily to estimate the true quantity, because weight is a very precisely measured dependent variable.
>t lost 45 lbs last year by tracking calories

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

>when you read an intelligent sounding post but it ends with the anon revealing they are or have once been fat

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

Correct. And if you're eating something that's a basically a uniform commodity like chicken breast, eggs, or an apple you're going to be pretty consistent with calories.

And, holy shit if you're a fat frick you don't need a scientist to tell you you're eating too goddamn much

2. 1 month ago
Anonymous

Just eat more and exercise more. Trick your body into thinking you're a successful predator.

3. 1 month ago
Anonymous

>manufacturers
Eat food you make yourself, gaylord

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

.

Just eat more and exercise more. Trick your body into thinking you're a successful predator.

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

Unironically yes

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

yes

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

Yes.

4. 1 month ago
Anonymous

you're only supposed to be eating whole foods (aka literally 1 or 2 ingredients) not bullshit packaged moron food.

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

You think those ingredients get divine edicts? No, they have the same margins of error. You're always going to be off by a huge degree, that's why counting calories is pointless without tracking your weight.

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

Whole foods. Don't have labels. Measure the portion on a food scale. Look up calories and macros per unit of measurement. Get consistent results

>holy shit bros, magic

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

>Look up calories and macros per unit of measurement.
You realize that this estimation is even more innacurate?

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

>there's a margin of error for how many calories a potato has
stop eating slop, Black person

5. 1 month ago
Anonymous

Don't worry about getting things down to an autistic level. Obviously count calories and track your macros so you can adjust as needed, but when it comes to adjustments worry more about direction and trends than precise amounts. If you want to lose weight, eat less than you're eating now. If you want to gain muscle eat more than you're eating now.

6. 1 month ago
Anonymous

1-5 servings per container

7. 1 month ago
Anonymous

Just be consistent

8. 1 month ago
Anonymous

>be me
>coath greg tells CICO at me like a naked mole rat
>protein doesn't even store as fat
>protein isn't burned for energy unless you're starving
>you piss out excess protein
>you don't burn body fat reserves until your blood sugar is low
>your metabolism slows in response to a blood sugar drop
>simple sugars spike insulin more than other macros
>nutrition labels are inaccurate by a margin of 20%
>quality of food affects hormone status
>spot burning is actually real
>BBB-BUT I LISTENED TO COATH GREG AND I'M STILL A FATASS

9. 1 month ago
Anonymous

Nutritional facts on what? Almost everything I eat I buy in the form of a single ingredient.

10. 1 month ago
Anonymous

I find this hard to believe since counting calories has never failed me.

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

The only people who calorie counting doesn't work for fat loss or muscle gain are people who have never actually counted calories before in their life, or if they have, they did it for a week or 2 and then gave up, or they just never did it properly to begin with.

I had a debate with a guy on here a few months ago who complained CICO didnt work, and when I asked if he was using a kitchen scale to weigh food out, he didn't even know what was a thing, so apparently he was "counting calories" without ever weighing anything and then claiming it doesn't work.

He was probably eating 1000 calories of olive oil a day ontop of his 1500 calories intake for fat loss and had no clue

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

>He was probably eating 1000 calories of olive oil a day ontop of his 1500 calories intake for fat loss and had no clue
Or he could, you know, just eat a package or half of it and use the numbers written on the package. Outlanish idea, reading, I know.

You're a fricking idiot, like all CICO adepts.

You even know what CICO started out as? It was called the Atwater System, invented by Olin Atwater, a Puritan freak who deemed late 1800 America as much too fat. He wans't nearly as dumb and Puritan as you guys, though, because the recommended like 3k calories per day for the average working man, with a massive amount of protein by today's standards. Keep in mind that the average guy in the 1800s ate like 120 g of protein per day, at a weight of 60-70 kg.

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

>soccer player needs 8k calories daily

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

Which means 2g/kg bodyweight was average back then. A far cy from today's 0.8g/kg recommendations.

Source for all this is
>Die Physiologie der Verdauung und Ernährung : 23 Vorlesungen für Studierende und Ärzte
>by Cohnheim, Otto, 1873-1953; Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

It helps if you're eating the same things often and you know when you need to drop/increase your calories.
I've definitely noticed some particular brands/foods were way off their counts because if I ate them often during a week I would see weight changes that didn't match.

11. 1 month ago
Anonymous

Just attach electrodes to your nut sack and nut 10 times a day to lose weight.

12. 1 month ago
Anonymous

calories dont exist
all that matters is not eating carbs or excessive protein, which keeps insulin low (the fat storage hormone)
you can eat unlimited calories of saturated animal fat in actual proper ketosis while losing bodyfat

13. 1 month ago
Anonymous

This image neglects to account for my perception's effect on reality.

14. 1 month ago
Anonymous

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

if i find out that anyone in my gym has this, im literally becoming best friends with that homie asap
We gon be doing some Steins Gate shit

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

Feed it cum. Jizz in it then jizz in it again 10 minutes later see if the calories are halved

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

>feed it cum
ill feed you cum

15. 1 month ago
Anonymous

it means "countgays BTFO"

16. 1 month ago
Anonymous

This is why people who count calories always trend towards overestimating the calories in food, and why fatties always underestimate calories.
I always just round up.
Oh that thing I ate was 340 calories. Cool, let's just call it 400 and then its easier to remember.
This is for cutting obviously, but as a natural fatty at heart, I have no issue bulking.

17. 1 month ago
Anonymous

CICO doesn't work and the morons who swear by it have to starve their bodies (and minds) in order to make it work.

• 1 month ago
Anonymous

lol so you just manifest calories out of thin air? hahahahahaha

18. 1 month ago
Anonymous

>WHAT DOES THIS MEAN BROS?
It means to move more until you lose weight. Eat less will not work. You will mainly lose muscle and water.

Btw this is also what old time bosers recommended - just run/train more to lose weight, never diet, it will sap your strength quickly. See, as an example, "Training for Boxers" by ~~*Nat Fleischer*~~ for more info.

You can also see this throughout human history - and this goe sinto some historical shit, so it's probably above your braingrade - people always ate a lot of food unless a famine hit them. Always. But they usually were also really fricking skinny because they worked a lot. When this changed , for example, from medieval to reniaissance times or from the Industrial Revolution to post modernity, people suddenly ballooned up. And they never became thin again until workload increased again.

And if you're religious, this is how God made it: