G-guys... the hardgainer myth is real. There can be up to a 2...

I think you’re confusing 1200-1400kCal BMR with 2400kCal TDEE

It’s more than that is what I realized, hardgainers actually fidget more when they overeat.
The point of this post was to reassure fatties like me who get angry or jealous of “hardgainers” because we wish we could eat more.

Yes but we don’t know the activity level of each individual dot so it’s meaningless. Comparing TDEE by weight and activity level would’ve been what’s needed to say anything useful.

Post the source to the article, graphs are nice and all but I want to see how they got their data

Exercise activity only accounts for 40 to 50% of the variability in TDEE, so the rest of it really is all the subconscious movements and metabolic processes.
fitfolk.com/average-calories-burned-per-day-men-women/
This was a extremely interesting article I’d like to share, you always hear “just cut to 1600” or “find your TDEE and subtract 500”
Your spontaneous activity can decrease your TDEE by 300 after just losing 6kg

Attached: D68A30E7-A11D-436F-9B10-1C22FDD711DE.gif (600x461, 31K)

My body is weird. On the hand it's very hard for me to stay below 10% bodyfat. I have to be absolutely strict with what I eat and if I don't I get back to my natural weight which is about 20% bodyfat. As soon as I have reached that, I simply don't gain weight anymore Im serious. I could eat 7k per day and nothing would happen.

>below
*at

It’s cool, he goes in depth about just how much is intentional activity levels and how much is fidgeting. Even gesturing while talking and shifting your posture is an example of NEAT.
Below:
He lists his sources too. I found it interesting I didn’t know about this sooner. I used to think “the medical community is lying! Women’s TDEE is way below 2400! That’s why everyone is fat! And all hardgainers are just complaining and lying about how much they eat!”

I literally just learned about this yesterday too.
youtube.com/watch?v=_uok8Itwles&list=PL4yX5OazQ_WRJtTRipFwlWETbaqm-8sgj
“Why diets fail” it seems even bodies have compensary processes like the fidgeting and heat production when you far overeat, the lecturer even says he noticed when he was cutting he gestured less in his presentations. It goes more in-depth too about why it gets that much harder below a certain point, mostly the adaptation processes. (Not exactly starvation myth muh “you’ll stop losing any weight at all!” But metabolic adaptation is actually real all along.)

Just all kinds of people. I think one of the graphs was pulled from a medical study that had nothing to do with weight and TDEE so it was just average people and not intentionally loooking for outliers.

I unironically had a situation on a date in which a girl complained about me constantly fidgeting with my legs. Ever since I've been on low bf I kind of seem to have stopped with that.

You know what I just realized? That’s probably why Erik jumps up and down so much in his intros (annoyed the crap out of me)
youtube.com/watch?v=tItMKmJU0DI
Man puts away 10,000 in a meal

Attached: 204C004F-037B-4B4F-A3D7-28C6FAD8B3F1.jpg (800x748, 55K)

>Even gesturing while talking and shifting your posture is an example of NEAT.
You honestly think that fucking gesturin while talking is going to burn a noticable amount of calories? You're a fucking retard. Stupid fucking coping fatass looking for excuses to explain his gluttony.

Yes you retard I just said exercise alone only counted for 40% to 50% of the variability. There are multiple studies where they locked people in a room and measured them at the end of the day and they burned over 1,000 calories difference. Geez. I’m not explaining my gluttony I’m saying it’s possible to have an extremely low TDEE naturally.

This thread was actually made in service to / as an apology to hardgainers, if you think fidgeting doesn’t count then that means hardgainers are a myth and everyone burns exactly 2400 calories.

No. You're an 85 IQ fatfuck desperate for excuses. I guarantee there are extraneous factors like age, muscle mass, height etc.

>Trusting Dr. Layne Ph.D. Norton, Ph.D.

>then that means hardgainers are a myth
Obviously. Everyone who isn't retarded already knew that. Skinny people don't eat much. Fatfucks eat a lot. The end.

Of course there are extraneous factors that’s the whole point. Your previous post was saying “fidgeting doesn’t count for all the difference” I’m saying the variability , including the sum of all these factors, can be huge (2,000+), not that either fatties or skeles are lying, but the calculators and general knowledge we keep repeating. Are we not both saying extraneous factors other than activity levels account for the huge TDEE differences?

It's not a myth. My brother and I almost have exact lifestyle only difference is not only does he eat a shitload more than me but he eats shit and he's still lean. I have to take care of what and how much I eat to stay lean. He's just two years older but we literally have a 90% similar lifestyle.

I’m saying hardgainers are not a myth, it really is possible to have a hard time gaining weight. And it’s possible for a fatty to have a low TDEE. Not that either group is lying or making excuses, but that the science behind it proves it’s true, that a hardgainer’s physiology is working against him.

this doesn't say how fat the women are. If they're your average height 5,4 average weight, 200 pound girls, then yes that makes sense for fat girls.

LMAO when you say his name that way it’s funny.
But it’s true. Think about it, I made this post because of all the NDA guidelines saying “representative of a 2,000 calorie daily diet” and such, when conventional knowledge / general science doesn’t apply to everyone and these small articles / videos investigate why. Or when people automatically accuse you or them of lying, but it’s possible to have such huge variabilities.

>being this fucking stupid
It's not that somebody is a """hardgainer""" it's that you're now comparing some skinnyfat faggot to some shredded lean bodybuilder. No shit the bodybuilder has a higher TDEE despite being "the same weight".

It's a myth and you're fucking stupid. Your brother doesn't eat a lot, you just think he does because you're a dumbass. Track both of your calories and weight for 2 weeks.

Wrong.

The first graph on the OP image plots weight (kg) to TDEE, even then there were huge differences.
This graph is the “cutting” calories for bodybuilders, so I assume they are all Jow Forums and lift, even then there’s a huge difference.

Attached: 64768012-6779-44D5-8BFC-F2DD437525B7.gif (600x461, 31K)

I’m not sure if I understand what you are saying here, do you mean that you don’t believe the skinnyfat man has the same TDEE as a lean man of the same weight? You’re saying two different things.

>do you mean that you don’t believe the skinnyfat man has the same TDEE as a lean man of the same weight
Obviously. Maintaining muscle takes calories. It would be retarded to call a ripped out of his mind 240lbs 8% bf 6'0" bodybuilder a """hardgainer""" because his TDEE is higher than some skinny fatass 240lb 40% bf chucklefuck.

I mean there are specific metabolic pathways through which sugar causes insulin resistance which causes obesity, diabetes 2, Alzheimer’s (diabetes 3), and heart disease and we can see this because all of these diseases were quite uncommon 200 years ago (cardiology used to be a small speciality) when we didn’t have the access to sugar that we do now. We ate about as much sugar in one week as our ancestors did over an entire year 100 years ago. But sure, I only bring up sugar because I want to eat more, not because it’s a societal evil that we shove down the throats of kids.

You know we have a ton of obese 6 month olds now, right? Are you going to explain that shit away with “they aren’t excercising enough”? Or is it more likely that the sugar we are packing in their baby food, when they’re biologically designed to be drinking breast milk, is probably at fault? Stop being a fucking idiot

Who the fuck does such study using such an age range. Typical american bullshit, totally worthless.

>Your brother doesn't eat a lot, you just think he does because you're a dumbass.
I count calories every day you fucking moron. I know for a fact how much he eats you incel. Seems like you can't cope with th fact that you have shit genetics.

Oh my god not this fucking faggot again. Sugar does not cause insulin resistance you fucking idiot. Our ancestors a 100 years ago did get diabetes but less of them did. Why? Because only few were overweight and not sitting on their fucking asses all day.

>all of these diseases were quite uncommon 200
They were not uncommon in Europe you brainlet. Also how the fuck were people supposed to know they're insulin resistant or even mildly diabetic back in the day? They also werent able to detect clogged arteries they just dropped dead you stupid fucking idiot.

That's because most American women are overweight

so if they lift it makes sense they'd eat that much. a skinny fat avergae height male takes in 2k cal, but a msucular one can take in anywhere from 2.5 to 3k.

Doesn't look like it takes into account if they were on gear or not, and if they're athletes they most certainly are. I can't believe this would be true at all considerig they'd be simply breaking the laws of thermo dynamics seemingly.

>being this retarded and angry
>thinking that your brother breaks the laws of physics
Kill yourself, cuckboy.

Broscientist were right. Again.

>aged 20-70

shiggy

>Explain this in as few words for someone who doesn’t want to read, pls.
Metabolism varies more than Jow Forums believes. A lot more.

>I don't understand "average"
Americans...

Aren't "broscientists" right most of the time anyway?

>I don't understand physics

I’m trying to understand your argument. The skinnyfat fella wouldn’t be 240lbs, I’m talking about the typical 140lb skele saying he’s a hardgainer. You were saying to compare an athlete at the same weight as a skele and calling them both a hardgainer? I don’t understand what you’re saying. It’s typically the skinnyfat skeles who say they are a hardgainer, and yes, they can have just as high a TDEE as an athlete of the same weight and stuff because of NEAT.

the R^2 are almost pointless to add in when they are that low. Thanks for posting OP. Interesting stuff.

Yeah that problem made me wonder about “is the medical community lying to us that the typical TDEE for a woman is 2400? If a woman’s real TDEE is only 1400, this would explain why so many women are lied to and gain weight.” In the end, I was wrong. Women really do have a TDEE of 2400 like everyone said, so the answer to why so many women are overweight is because they eat even more than 2400, not because they were lied to about how high their metabolism was.

Would that low R^2 mean there’s a very little correlation between your weight and your TDEE? That would bolster my findings even more that it’s more than just weight that contributes to TDEE and a low weight hardgainer can have a monster metabolism.

Keto BTFO lol

Attached: ketotards btfo.gif (600x443, 19K)

The reason is women, like you, believe most of the stuff they are told. they have been told that eating less is the cure for basically anything, so they ate less. Which crashed metabolisms and ate up muscle mass like nobody's business. Now they are sicker than before and say "dis shit dun work" and eat like before the diet. Only now, they have 20 lbs less muscle mass and a metabolism like a 70-year old Roman patrician who only eats, shits and sleeps while his slave is fucking prepubescent girls before him.

Cue obesity epidemic.

yeah in simple terms the R^2 is a line meant to illustrate the correlation between the x and y. The closer it gets to 1.0, the stronger the correlation. Those numbers are so low there might not actually be a significant correlation but my biometry is rusty.

Btw, they actually have an activity chart. But it's completely random.

Attached: activity-multpliers.gif (599x436, 26K)

Never mind the discrepancy in activity level, this study didn't control for
>height
>age (20-70 lmao what the fuck)
>proficiency in activities (ie 2 180 guys might be very active but one is a newbie while the other is 2/3/4/5)
>diet prior to study

Attached: enery-needs-weight.gif (600x466, 31K)

Attached: activitylevels.gif (600x500, 33K)

>I'm not fat because i eat too much my body just bypasses laws of thermodynamics!
kys fatty

30% is alright tbhfam, but that age range is fucked though

But the answer to weight loss... really is to eat less.
I believe you about crashing the metabolism though, there has been studies that each cycle of yo-yo dieting primes the body to store more fat and burn less the next round. One of which is in mice, where the first time they reduced their intake by 20%, and they lost at say a rate of 1x. Then they let them eat as much as they want and gained at 1x rate. The next time they were restricted to 20%, they lost at only 0.5x the rate and gained at 2x the rate. Scary shit.
I think if we spread the propaganda that women have a metabolism that’s like, 1600 or something more women would have success cutting, since 50% of women have a metabolism less than 2400. But if we tell them all are 2400, for those that have a metabolism

It’s not bypasses the laws of thermodynamics
And yes I am “too fat because I eat too much” but I’m saying “too much” for me might be 1600, while too much for someone else is 3500. That’s exactly the problem. We’re telling everyone they’re just lying but actually it’s true that metabolism can vary greatly, not because they’re breaking the laws of thermodynamics.
The “law of thermodynamics” here is that there’s other things going on that’s burning.

People with high TDEE have it because they are muscular, run a lot, have a manual labor job etc. It's not because some guys randomly have a metabolism that magically burns 1,000 calories more.

"Hardgainer" is a myth.

And what of the other factors? There's so much else the study doesn't control for, yet people earlier in the thread are making hypotheses like "it's fidgeting bro"

>making drastic claims with an r value of 0.5

If youre fat then no chance 1600 is too much for you. People with more muscle burn off more calories just by sitting still. Two people can be 6'2 200lbs and have completely different proportions. The study is bullshit. It doesn't even account for people's muscle mass never mind jobs.

If your body needs less then eat less I don't get how it's a valid excuse.
Tdee is 1200 ? Eat 1000.

>G-guys... the hardgainer myth is real.
You sure? 99% of the people claiming to be hardgainers don't tell me how many calories they're eating, the ones that actually are eating a surplus have a fucked up digestive system and cant absorb shit, some have a very low insulin production, both are very easy to solve