I have a theory about calories...

I have a theory about calories. I don't believe that it's always "calories in calories out" when it comes to whole clean things such as nuts, fruits, seeds, veggies, etc. I think if you were to eat 3500 calories worth of nuts you would not gain weight like you would if you est 3500 calories of cake or some other bullshit. What do you guys think, is it retarded or am I onto something that it's not about the quantity of the calories but the quality

Attached: 1534311319213.jpg.jpg (642x960, 88K)

if you eat 3500 calories of dog shit and 3500 calories of broccoli you will gain the same amount of weight. how healthy you will be and feel is a different question

You're a fucking retard. You will gain the same amount of weight regardless.


Now, how much of is that is fat and muscle, and how has your body composition changes, muscle fullness etcetera will vary depending on the food you eat and how your body reacts

Fucking nigger

There are studies that suggest what you say is true, nuts don't seem to make people fat if you eat more than your caloric maintenance. I'm sure if you ate nothing but nuts you'd get pretty sick but I think you're somewhat onto something. I'd wait until more studies come out before I put any credence to it though

How to get rich easy
>Earn more money than you spend

This is literally what cico retards think constitutes good advice.

That picture makes me sad for some reason.

Yeah because sugar causes fat gains, there are other variables besides calories in/out.

Like being an unlovable faggot like you and me

Attached: 1506908056051.jpg (663x579, 39K)

It's true though. Live within your means

Someone who actually has an open mind, I've experimented this theory just a bit by eating over my TDEE in nuts and fruits and I didn't gain any weight, but that could just be my fault. I do agree that there should be more studies but into the quality of the calories you consume, as not all calories are the same.

>Rich
You seem to not understand wageslave cuckery

Attached: 1506494674364.png (618x626, 467K)

It's true but completely unhelpful advice

You're retarded.

>eats 5000 calories of cyanide
>doesn't die of obesity

Attached: 1506700342053.png (205x246, 4K)

>I don't believe that it's always "calories in calories out"

You don't believe in the laws of thermodynamics?

It's true, because on what happens on the CO part of CICO. Basically because of insulin. The cake will raise your insulin levels, where as the nuts will nut. In a lower-insulin environment, your body will burn more calories.

then don't be a wageslave
if you play a sport and are reasonably fit, start a small business offering training
if you don't monetize your assets and work for yourself, then you are a true cuck and will never make it

>then don't be a wageslave

Attached: 1523908164113.png (500x590, 19K)

I don't believe our body metabolizes calories equally, is that so crazy to believe?

>where as the nuts will nut
will not*
>_>

>nut
nut

Attached: dx2pjzzneaoz.png (456x691, 324K)

Also, you have a hypothesis, not a theory. Just clarifying senpai

Attached: 1506295606583.jpg (500x637, 107K)

Everyone accepts thermodynamics you utter cretin.

The problem is calories out = f(macros in), so really your energy balance is

Macros in - f(macros in)

Notice thermodynamics still holds 100% while eating different foods and different numbers of calories can effect your energy balance

fuck kill yourself btw

Calories into your pie hole or calories absorbed through your stomach and gutty works. There is a difference. Not enough to discard the general rule of calories in calories out but 2500 calories of well balanced meals is going to be absorbed and used differently than 2500 of sugar and shit. You can go over your tdee and not gain weight, you can not be at a defecit and not lose weight. The digestive track can flush out food with out processing it. It can not create food.

Your analogy is close but a bit off
cico isn't "How to get rich" it's "how to not go bankrupt"
>spend less than you earn
is completely valid advice in 90% of cases because most people are as bad at budgeting as they are at dieting.

Now, if people were advocating cico as a way to get built, then your analogy would make sense, but it's not about achieving great success so much as avoiding abject failure, and in that case the most basic applicable advice is the correct one.

It's like asking "how do I squat?" and some retard says "it's just newtons laws" like great, thanks for that

just because its basic doesn't mean its wrong you absolute retard

>guys I'm always broke and in debt how do I stop this?
>first you should assess your expenses and try to cut down on spending so you can work on reducing debt which reduces interest payments which increases your effective income
>Okay but like should I be putting my money in a high yield savings account or an investment portfolio?

It's not that it's a bad question to ask, but if you're fat you need to eat less. Eating healthier is great, but isn't going to make you not fat on it's own, and unless you take the basic step of controlling the quantity first any effort you put into improving the quality is going to be inefficient, and more difficult than just eating less in the first place.

Giving any advice other than "eat less" to people with a significant weight problem is more than likely going to be wasted, because if they can't even manage to not shove twice as much food into their face as they need they aren't going to be able to make the lifestyle changes that eating right and regularly exercising demand anyway.

Literally never said it was wrong, I said it wasn't useful

Would your body absorb waste products or would you shit most out?

What's heavier, a thousand pounds of bricks or a thousand pounds of feathers? It's exactly the same. You can eat 1.3k of Twinkies and 1.3k of nuts and lose at the exact same rate

You do realize how retarded it is to compare something as simple as weight to something extremely complex as the breaking down and metabolization of different types of calories

All of these people are narrow minded.

What OP is saying is that it's not just CICO. He's saying that the types of food you eat effects what your body does with the food. This is absolutely 100% scientifically proven to be true.

If you eat 500 calories of something that spikes your blood sugar because it has a high glycemic index vs 500 cals of something with a low glycemic index your body will react very differently. What, how much, and when you eat is far more important than you ate this amount of cals and expended this amount.

CICO is almost a useless guideline to eating. It's like your BMI. Not really relevant.

No it's about the way the body reacts to food. If you eat a ton of insulin spiking sugar and shit you will retain more as fat meaning fewer calories go to the likes of body heat, immune system etc

>quoting me despite the fact I agreed with OP

hm state of ur brain m8

>the nuts will nut
kek

CICO is determined by food you absorb. Obviously if it's stuff you don't absorb (eg, cellulose) then that's not factored into the intake

Or you could tally it by counting anything that goes down your mouth, but then you'd have to add the "calories out" of undigested stuff that you shit out. either way, it still works

Everything you said before
>CICO is almost a useless guideline to eating.
is true
But
>CICO is almost a useless guideline to eating.
is fucking retarded. The quantity is by far the more significant factor, the quality isn't inconsequential but "eat less = weigh less" is 95% of the equation, and the best way to measure how much you eat is cico.