• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

calories in vs calories out

theres MACRO nutrients (carbs, proteins, fats)

and there's MICRO nutrients (vitamins, minerals etc, the shit that keeps us alive)

one is energy, one is used in important reactions inside the body to stay healthy.

And my point was if calories in vs calories out was the only important thing, then ANY energy source would suffice. this is not the case. and that is what the thread title asks.
 
Pretty much all but the absolute shittest diets in wealthy countries get enough micros to survive. We don't need to eat 100% clean, organic, respectfully killed on the first full moon after the equinox food to get adequate micro nutrients.

Eat a range of foods to cover micros. No one has said different.

But again if calories don't matter where are all the obese people in starving third world countries.
 
Bazza20 said:
We don't need to eat 100% clean, organic, respectfully killed on the first full moon after the equinox food to get adequate micro nutrients.
Click to expand...

Oh I do ...
Makes eating meat a rare occurrence though ... we need more equinoxes ... falling behind on protein macros for months


lol this thread is a riot, isn't it?
 
i can easily eat above maintenance and not put on any bodyfat.

the only thing that happens is my bodys heat rises and its burnt off that way. but then again i don't have any underlying health problems. just an example.

thats what the body is supposed to do...

people who are seriously overweight have underlying healthy issues.
 

Logic fail.

If you are eating above maintenance and don't put on weight just by the meaning of the word you are obviously not eating above maintenance.
 
Bazza20 said:
Pretty much all but the absolute shittest diets in wealthy countries get enough micros to survive. We don't need to eat 100% clean, organic, respectfully killed on the first full moon after the equinox food to get adequate micro nutrients.
Click to expand...

How shitty is too shitty? Daily I eat:
- 3 grand angus's + 1 soft serve
- 6 eggs + 2 pieces of toast
- Maybe a mars bar + some Mother drinks
- Protein shakes

No fruit, packets of veggies, etc...
I have been having a foot long subway + 500g of home cooked mince + Dolmios lately to try to eat a bit better.. I've cut out 2 of the Maccas burgers too
 

The body is great at adapting. Micro nutrient deficiencies take months to years to show up. So if you are eating a range of foods over a long period of time you are most likely fine.

By shitty I would be thinking like extremely limited diets. Example a person who only eats bread and nothing else.
 
Bazza20 said:
Logic fail.

If you are eating above maintenance and don't put on weight just by the meaning of the word you are obviously not eating above maintenance.
Click to expand...

sorry mate, i know i was well above maintenance, hence my body on fire burning the extra fuel.

listen to your body.
 

damn son, imagine if you put some effort and pre-packed your food from stuff you prepared yourself.

guarantee you'd look better, be leaner, stronger and bigger.
 
Anyone disputing calories in vs calories out is basically saying that they do not believe in law of conservation of energy.

Calories in vs calories out must always be true. Where a set of circumstances do not appear to fit that paradigm, all this says is that there is something wrong with the way the calories have been measured.
 
C_T said:
sorry mate, i know i was well above maintenance, hence my body on fire burning the extra fuel.

listen to your body.
Click to expand...

How many calories above your "maintenance" were you eating? Which of these specific healthy people hormones are you referring to in order to burn the fuel?
 
[MENTION=7521]C_T[/MENTION]; I'm not having a go here but right now, your logic does not resemble our Earth logic.

If you didn't gain weight and you stayed at the same weight, you were at maintenance.

I'm a'gonna pull rank now .... you cannot change the laws of physics, sir.

Not even just for you.

Thermodynamics ... simple thermodynamics says that if you were converting all the energy from food into heat, you were not above maintenance.
 
Lol....


Was gonna say something about laws of phsyics failing here...



But did not want to get pistol whipped by CCM/10...


(Yay to physics)
 
nazzysmith said:
Lol....


Was gonna say something about laws of phsyics failing here...



But did not want to get pistol whipped by CCM/10...


(Yay to physics)
Click to expand...

pistol whipped for correctly pointing out an attempted violation of the laws of thermodynamics?

are you kidding?

I think Maxwell would be spinning in his grave and screaming

"you're at maintenance, you fool!!!!!!!"

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register