Weight set point

>hurr durr calorie in calorie out

there's something called metabolism, retards

Attached: met.png (723x439, 195K)

Other urls found in this thread:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1461141
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7885279
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6748948
academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/82/5/941/4607670
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/77a2/4c741388e67192aac52d8b442deabad865f9.pdf
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It's about changing your calories relative to your TDEE dipshit. Have you ever heard someone say "eat 1500 calories/day to cut"? No, it's always "eat 500 calories below TDEE".

below set point body weight = metabolism decrease and vice versa

Attached: eevef.png (856x473, 377K)

Attached: met 2.png (1682x412, 615K)

rats overfed, rats overfed, rats normally fed
once the overfeeding, underfeeding stopped the rats returned to same weight as their peers almost immediately due to metabolism changes

Attached: sad.png (619x436, 112K)

nail in coffin

Attached: etra weight.png (909x430, 361K)

stop making excuses you fat motherfuckers
most of these studies regard bullshit fringe cases

this one was on post-menopausal women, for example

set points are a thing but most metabolic adaptation can be overcome by taking mantinence periods equal to slightly over half the duration of the diet, especially for high deficits (750+ cal/day)

if you've been a fat fuck your whole life you need to work _harder_, ultimately the only way to lose fat is to force the body to into an energy deficit and the easiest way to accomplish that (to some degree of permanence) is to take periods of calorie restriction with intermittent refeeds and mantinence periods between blocks of active dieting

>Matched for Free Fat mass and not total body weight
I'm assuming that's a typo and they mean fat free mass, because free fat mass isn't a thing.

>300 pound man
>150 pound man
>They have different basal metabolic rates! CALORIES BTFO!
Fix your stupid powerpoint, OP, you fat retard. You're right, it's totally genetics, that's why you're overweight. Nothing you can do can fix it.

>some prisoners couldn't put on extra weight at 100,000 calories

What the fuck am I reading? Do you expect people to believe this shit?

Had to spend some time on Google but Free Fat mass has been used a few times, which is completely retarded to use in that study. It means they could be:
>Different height
>Different weight
>Different amount of muscle mass
But hey, look they both have 40 pounds of fat, why don't they need the same amount of calories?!

Wow, 5 whole .jpgs making claims with literally no sources whatsoever! I'm convinced.

Attached: 8c0057a4a92d731a3393d6a88de0f23a98076df787b15bf9f4c731ed29fa8be4.jpg (640x672, 40K)

Only in america people think they get fat out of nowhere

so how to increase basal metabolic rate you might ask

1- HIIT (muscle mass increase of metabolism is negligible)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1461141
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7885279
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6748948
2- OMEGA 3:6 RATIO
3- COLD EXPOSURE

that's about it.

You still need a calorie deficit. Idiot.

But they're .pngs, user.

don't forget genetics!!!!

o fuck

GTFO of this shitty website and exercise you mouth breathing swine

> Only 2% of the observed variability in BMR was attributable to within-subject effects, of which 0.5% was analytic error. Of the remaining variance, which reflected between-subject effects, 63% was explained by FFM, 6% by FM, and 2% by age. The effects of sex and bone mineral content were not significant (P > 0.05). Twenty-six percent of the variance remained unexplained. This variation was not associated with concentrations of circulating leptin or T3. T4 was not significant in women but explained 25% of the residual variance in men.

> Our data confirm that both FFM and FM are significant contributors to BMR. When the effect of FM on BMR is removed, any association with leptin concentrations disappears, which suggests that previous links between circulating leptin concentrations and BMR occurred only because of inadequate control for the effects of FM.


academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/82/5/941/4607670


Only 2% of the variation in BMR was unaccounted for when all the possible factors were accounted for.

Your metabolism simply isn't that significantly faster or slow than other people's.Pretty much all the variation is explained by age, gender, height, weight and body composition.

>cannot gain weight at 100000 kcal/day
who writes this shit hahaha

can someone find this study?

pdfs.semanticscholar.org/77a2/4c741388e67192aac52d8b442deabad865f9.pdf

10k run 715kcal
>TOPKEK

If you have a slow metabolism you won't be hungry as often
There, the problem solved itself

lol

So calorie restriction worked, until they stopped doing it?

That utterly contradicts your point.

Yes all these fringe cases from unverified sources subjected zero peer review explain why I can't stop fucking eating, it makes perfect sense.

yeah that's the calories out part ROFL

I’m a 20 year old man that eats between 1500-2000 calories to maintain while running 3-4 days a week.