Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Calories in vs out myth

Pmo1212

New member
Okay I want to see how many other people agree with this and a lot has been coming out on this lately. Our body does not use calories because they're a measurement we created to MEASURE the amount of food. Our body doesn't use calories it uses NUTRIENTS from food. So calories in vs out is one of the most flawed theories out there. Read good calories vs bad calories by Gary Taubes. He basically proves that you can eat as much fat and protien without carbs and you will still lose fat. In fact one guy in the book eats 7,000 "calories" worth of fat with no exercise and gets leaner. What gets us fat is constantly secreting insulin and it's proven through research.
 
Not at all...just basic science. If getting fat was a math problem like calories in vs out then we would be the most simple thing in the universe. It's not as easy as 1+1=2 which is why calories in vs out doesn't exist it's the worst bro science out there.
 
Pmo1212 said:
Not at all...just basic science. If getting fat was a math problem like calories in vs out then we would be the most simple thing in the universe. It's not as easy as 1+1=2 which is why calories in vs out doesn't exist it's the worst bro science out there.
Click to expand...

cals in vs cals out does work, and exists. You're just not accounting for all the individualistic components that everyone has which complicates it
 
Look up the book I mentioned and the studies where people consume almost triple they're daily calories in protien and high fat and still lose weight due to the absence of carbs. Carbs are not the enemy but they are the reason why we get fat. Why do you think the keto/ atkins/paleo diet are so popular and effective for getting shredded?
 
Pmo1212 said:
Look up the book I mentioned and the studies where people consume almost triple they're daily calories in protien and high fat and still lose weight due to the absence of carbs. Carbs are not the enemy but they are the reason why we get fat. Why do you think the keto/ atkins/paleo diet are so popular and effective for getting shredded?
Click to expand...

i never said you couldn't lose weight without carbs. I did keto for 5months. The reason it works is because protein and fats are more filling than carbs, and carbs also hold 4g of water/g causing greater weight gain. Fats and protein have insulinogenic responses just like carbs do.
You can still get fat on a keto diet
 
Got to Gary Taubes and stopped reading.
 
I am not really anti- taubes, I actually think he might be on to a few things, but your breakdown here is completely wrong. Start by picking up a biochem book. kCals are a measurement of energy contained within food. It isn't some arbitrary number placed on food. This is measurable and verifiable and real. Now as for calories in v out, this is a thermodynamic reality, just not as useful in real world application as practical advice.
 
Eat 3,000 calories of simple carbs for a month then for another month eat 3,000 calories of only fat and tell me what happens. Going by cals in vs out...you should not gain any more wright on one vs the other. But I'm telling you that you will gain fat on the simple carbs vs eating only fat which will result in no weight gain to maybe even a reduction in fat. I'm talking only fat gain here no water weight from the carbs.
 
Pmo1212 said:
Eat 3,000 calories of simple carbs for a month then for another month eat 3,000 calories of only fat and tell me what happens. Going by cals in vs out...you should not gain any more wright on one vs the other. But I'm telling you that you will gain fat on the simple carbs vs eating only fat which will result in no weight gain to maybe even a reduction in fat. I'm talking only fat gain here no water weight from the carbs.
Click to expand...
Yes and no

Your mistake is, is focusing solely on the needy in part of the equation. The energy out part is going to be vastly different between a diet of all carbs vs all fat
 
Not a myth,

But also not that simple.
/thread lol
 
Although I agree that the nutrients you take in as well as the composition of those nutrients matter…at the end of the day, a caloric surplus or deficit is going to be a guiding factor
 
BeastFitness said:
Although I agree that the nutrients you take in as well as the composition of those nutrients matter…at the end of the day, a caloric surplus or deficit is going to be a guiding factor
Click to expand...

I feel like carbs can cause me to retain a certain amount of water which on the scale would look like weight gain, and in the mirror create a softening. however, I know this isn't fat because a few days of drying out and its gone much quicker than I could actually burn off 5+lbs of fat.

it seems like a calorie is a calorie in terms of unit of energy, but how our body uses and stores the calories and what other effects they have on us vary a bit.

the whole topic is a little too convoluted to make a single point of clarity though, lol.
 
Ya they each have different required numbers to try and hit each day they don't pay attention to anything else just protein fat and carbs
 
Pmo1212 said:
Eat 3,000 calories of simple carbs for a month then for another month eat 3,000 calories of only fat and tell me what happens. Going by cals in vs out...you should not gain any more wright on one vs the other. But I'm telling you that you will gain fat on the simple carbs vs eating only fat which will result in no weight gain to maybe even a reduction in fat. I'm talking only fat gain here no water weight from the carbs.
Click to expand...

Don't look now but your hook is showing lol

I do however agree that fat does not necessarily make a person fat, however it is easy to go into surplus with it which will make you fat.
 
Counting calories vs counting macros are completely different when you count calories you aren't keeping track of what makes those calories but when you are keeping track of your macros you are more closely looking at what nutrition value your food has
 
customchevy said:
Counting calories vs counting macros are completely different when you count calories you aren't keeping track of what makes those calories but when you are keeping track of your macros you are more closely looking at what nutrition value your food has
Click to expand...
And counting feet traveled is different than counting miles traveled ..

Same thing
 
customchevy said:
Counting calories vs counting macros are completely different when you count calories you aren't keeping track of what makes those calories but when you are keeping track of your macros you are more closely looking at what nutrition value your food has
Click to expand...

how is it different? do you mean Micros? Macros are proteins, fats, and carbs. Each one proteins and carbs contain 4 calories, fat contains 9 per gram. If you are tracking macros you are tracking calories. Literally the same thing. It's only a one way relationship of macros to calories though
 
This hurt my brain so hard to read.. Lol.

Not even going to bother arguing it actually, because I can tell OP has set his mind to what he believes. :P
 
Pmo1212 said:
Eat 3,000 calories of simple carbs for a month then for another month eat 3,000 calories of only fat and tell me what happens. Going by cals in vs out...you should not gain any more wright on one vs the other. But I'm telling you that you will gain fat on the simple carbs vs eating only fat which will result in no weight gain to maybe even a reduction in fat. I'm talking only fat gain here no water weight from the carbs.
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed
Not srs...
 
I always said that if i eat 3000 calories a day for a month of snickers and cake i will lose muscle n replace it with fat
if i eat 3000 calories of chicken and fish i will lose fat and replace it with muscle

in the end i will weigh pretty close to the exact same.
 
ericool007 said:
I always said that if i eat 3000 calories a day for a month of snickers and cake i will lose muscle n replace it with fat
if i eat 3000 calories of chicken and fish i will lose fat and replace it with muscle

in the end i will weigh pretty close to the exact same.
Click to expand...

You always said.. but did you actually try it?
 
I'm actually tempted to go on a donut diet. I've been doing a mini cut and my calories have been way low. like hovering around 2,000.

I'm tempted to just eat 6 Krispy Kreme donuts per day for a week and see what happens lol.

Invalid Link Removed

I think i'll feel like total crap and starve to death. but hey in the name of science maybe I could pound 42 donuts next week.
 
IMO it's only when people go by calories only in regards to their diet that they are hurting themselves. For ex. Just decreasing 500 random calories a day for a cut instead of decreasing 100 grams of carbs specifically
 
Check out "Free your mind from calories" on the bios3training youtube channel. The title sounds scammy but Jerry has some really sound advice
 
rreal_natty said:
IMO it's only when people go by calories only in regards to their diet that they are hurting themselves. For ex. Just decreasing 500 random calories a day for a cut instead of decreasing 100 grams of carbs specifically
Click to expand...

Exactly that, I always manipulate my carbs to suit my current goals, generally keep Protein at 1.5g per lb of body weight (too high I know but keeps me satiated) fats around 80-100 g and adjust carbs to suit goals.
 
rreal_natty said:
IMO it's only when people go by calories only in regards to their diet that they are hurting themselves. For ex. Just decreasing 500 random calories a day for a cut instead of decreasing 100 grams of carbs specifically
Click to expand...

Well no because that would be 400 calories. and in real life the difference will be close to negligible for most people. You Majoring in the minor details...
 
This thread is still going??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top