the current calorie scale isn't completely accurate, but it's error margin is something like 30%, not 300%
if all you eat in one week is 7 slices of pizza and 7 small cheeseburgers and all you drink is water, there is no way for a normal adult (ie not a 24 inch tall midget or an anorexic coma victim) to gain actual body mass (not water weight)
it simply isn't possible
Just nearly an entire day's worth of caloriesright, but that's over an entire month. 2100 calories over a month isn't that much.
I would posit an experiment. One Krispy Kreme doughnut contains 300 calories. Eat 10 of these a day along with a multivitamin and a gallon of water for a month, and watch what happens to you. Do the same thing with 9 cups of chicken (approx 3,000 calories). There will be a substantial difference in your body weight after a month (both mass, and bloat).
we were talking about < 1000 calories a day
how does eating 3000 calories a day prove anything about what happens when you eat sub 1k?
your assertion was that eating sub 1k of junk will make you fat
this is false period
No, the assertion was that eating calories from one source is not the same as calories from another source, you came up with the 1kcal/day value. For the average adult male, 1kcal a day is hovering close to where the body will start to fast, you're likely to lose muscle mass and gain fat mass no matter what you eat, frankly (which would make you wrong twice).
I believe your assertion of 1kcal/day came from '7 slices of pizza and 7 hamburgers a week', I never stated that per week, I stated 'a slice of pizza' or 'a hamburger' being an average meal size, roughly. I believe you extracted the notion from that statement that I subsisted off 7 burgers and 7 slices of pizza a week (aka 1kcal/day) which would be false. That's disregarding breakfasts (near-exclusively meat and dairy), calories derived from liquids (primarily milk, sometimes alcohol), moderate lunches and dinners consisting of mostly carb-based meals (pastas, pizza, burgers, etc) with meal sizes roughly akin to a single burger (500ish cal), a piece of pizza (400-600 cal), a plate of pasta (depends on pasta, sauce, etc, prolly another 400-700 cal).
This can easily turn in to 1500-2000cal/day, and again, as per the original point of my post, 2000cal/day of that shit makes me gain weight, 2000cal/day of protein and fat makes me lose weight. Feel free to read the two links I posted for further information on what was essentially my exact experience, albeit with lower cal/day intake.
we were talking about < 1000 calories a day
how does eating 3000 calories a day prove anything about what happens when you eat sub 1k?
your assertion was that eating sub 1k of junk will make you fat
this is false period
I'm a big guy (not fat) and I don't need anywhere near 2500 calories per day to be healthy. I lost almost 80 pounds, then I gained 30, then I lost it again and I've kept it off for many years at this point. The secret isn't a secret - eat less.There is absolutely no way you can go from a stable weight with a stable diet to the same weight while consuming fewer calories. I didn't need to workout at all and I still only workout occasionally. I also sit behind a desk for the entire day.
Stop drinking coffee. The eggs are the only part of that meal that's worth a shit. You'd lose a completely pointless bunch of calories from your daily intake.
Don't eat 1,000 calories for dinner. That's a shitload of food for one meal.
If you're unwilling to stop drinking coffee and eat less at dinner, don't complain about your weight. You can't have it both ways.
What's wrong with drinking coffee? It's generally drinking cream and sugar that's the problem, are you associating the two? Just curious if I missed something about coffee??
EDIT:
If I had any patience I would have seen the other replies mentioning this. Sorry!
Yes, BMI is flawed. But study after study shows that longevity is a U-shaped graph with respect to mass. You don't want to be too thin or too fat.
I'm average height and for most of my life was a bean poll at ~120 lbs. I've bulked up by going to the gym and am ~150 lbs right now. I'm not justifying being fat. I'm trying to put on weight (thus I know BMI is actually terrible for bodybuilders and similar athletic people). I'm just stating facts that you want to be slightly above normal weight for maximum life expectancy.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15840860
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19299006
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662372/figure/fig6/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3865852/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9551005/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10705849/
Wait, you're arguing with the idea that if you eat one slice of pizza per day, and nothing else (or alternate a hamburger instead), you'll get fat? I'm quite confident that's not the assertion that was being made, and frankly, I'm not sure how you could reasonably arrive at that conclusion.we were talking about < 1000 calories a day
how does eating 3000 calories a day prove anything about what happens when you eat sub 1k?
your assertion was that eating sub 1k of junk will make you fat
this is false period
Wait, you're arguing with the idea that if you eat one slice of pizza per day, and nothing else (or alternate a hamburger instead), you'll get fat? I'm quite confident that's not the assertion that was being made, and frankly, I'm not sure how you could reasonably arrive at that conclusion.
just make sure you have a gallon of wine per day to wash out all the fat
The original assertion was that Osiris could gain a belt loop in a week by eating a single slice of pizza in addition to a regular, stable diet. The claim was his body is that sensitive to extra calories/bad food. tynopik was addressing the absurdity of that statement.
I'd wager you're under 35 yrs old? Trust me, I never ate particularly healthily but now? I can no shit gain a belt loop from a week of garbage eating, no matter the quantity (like one piece of pizza from papa john's for dinner, a five guys small cheeseburger w/out fries, shit like that). Carb-rich, bready, sugar'd, etc food can increase your weight very very quickly, calories be damned.
I can eat like a horse if it's chicken, fish, or starchless veggies, as I've said before, and still lose weight.
What I meant by the above was a 'standard american diet' with quantities in roughly the '1 piece of pizza per meal' range of calories, as opposed to 'half a fucking pizza and a dozen wings per meal' range. That standard american diet may include burgers, pizzas, pastas, something and potatoes, or whatever else, but all meals would be in the same 4-700 caloric range, equating to somewhere around 1200-2100 calories a day, as opposed to 4000 a day eating like a starved zombie. With aforementioned 1200-2100 cal/day of garbage I gain weight (quite capably a belt loop in a week as well, may/may not be associated with bloat or mass increase), with 1200-2100 cal/day of non-garbage, I lose weight (and belt loops). That's really all there is to it.
Much of Cisna’s results have to do with cutting his calorie intake, so it’s not surprising that he lost weight and...
I don't think that was it either, and I think you're making a different argument than tynopik was!The original assertion was that Osiris could gain a belt loop in a week by eating a single slice of pizza in addition to a regular, stable diet. The claim was his body is that sensitive to extra calories/bad food. tynopik was addressing the absurdity of that statement.
I think the audience is the problem, taking an off-the-cuff example as hard analytical data!Perhaps I was unclear.
This for example, he literally said 1,200-2,100, a range, and you have here answered only directly to a hard 1,200 per day.You can't just make up mass out of nowhere. At 1,200 calories per day, you are not gaining an inch of waist line per week even if you only eat twinkies. It's just not possible in any capacity.
What I meant by the above was a 'standard american diet' with quantities in roughly the '1 piece of pizza per meal' range of calories, as opposed to 'half a fucking pizza and a dozen wings per meal' range. That standard american diet may include burgers, pizzas, pastas, something and potatoes, or whatever else, but all meals would be in the same 4-700 caloric range, equating to somewhere around 1200-2100 calories a day, as opposed to 4000 a day eating like a starved zombie. With aforementioned 1200-2100 cal/day of garbage I gain weight (quite capably a belt loop in a week as well, may/may not be associated with bloat or mass increase), with 1200-2100 cal/day of non-garbage, I lose weight (and belt loops). That's really all there is to it.
I don't think that was it either, and I think you're making a different argument than tynopik was!
I think the audience is the problem, taking an off-the-cuff example as hard analytical data!
This for example, he literally said 1,200-2,100, a range, and you have here answered only directly to a hard 1,200 per day.
I would posit an experiment. One Krispy Kreme doughnut contains 300 calories. Eat 10 of these a day along with a multivitamin and a gallon of water for a month, and watch what happens to you. Do the same thing with 9 cups of chicken (approx 3,000 calories). There will be a substantial difference in your body weight after a month (both mass, and bloat).
Doh. You started out so well there. Then you had to throw in that last bit. So, you claim that calories are all different, but all you need is less of them. Those two sentences are incompatible.You can't just make up mass out of nowhere...Not every calorie is created equal. Everyone with a partially functional brain knows that.
What they all have in common is that eating fewer calories = losing weight. That's really all there is to it.
You can't just make up mass out of nowhere. At 1,200 calories per day, you are not gaining an inch of waist line per week even if you only eat twinkies. It's just not possible in any capacity.
Not every calorie is created equal. Everyone with a partially functional brain knows that. What you seem to be suggesting, however, is that you can gain an absurd amount of mass in a short period of time by eating different types of calories. You don't get to fall back on "it might be water weight" because the premise of your argument isn't even sensitive to that. You didn't say "eat like shit and drink 14 gallons of water every day." You don't have to be a nutrition expert to see the fallacy in this argument.
http://www.today.com/health/man-loses-56-pounds-after-eating-only-mcdonalds-six-months-2D79329158
You can find one of these stories for every type of story saying the opposite thing. What they all have in common is that eating fewer calories = losing weight. That's really all there is to it.
Doh. You started out so well there. Then you had to throw in that last bit. So, you claim that calories are all different, but all you need is less of them. Those two sentences are incompatible.
Lets just start out with conservation of MASS. (Mass in) - (Mass out) = (Mass gained or lost). That's really all there is to it. Not calories; science 101 states that. All scientists think that is true until you talk about food; then basic science goes out the window and people think (Calories in) - (Calories out) = (Mass gained or lost). Unless your body is a nuclear reactor, that statement violates the basis of physics and chemistry.
Now, mass in is easy to understand but it is extremely difficult to control long term for most people. Mass out is where the differences lie. Some food is easily digested, some isn't. Food types (high fiber is almost the polar opposite of high sugar; high protein helps with controlling mass in, and so on), exercise, gut bacteria, quantities above your ability to digest, general health level, etc. all affect the mass out portion.
Doh. You started out so well there. Then you had to throw in that last bit. So, you claim that calories are all different, but all you need is less of them. Those two sentences are incompatible.
Lets just start out with conservation of MASS. (Mass in) - (Mass out) = (Mass gained or lost). That's really all there is to it. Not calories; science 101 states that. All scientists think that is true until you talk about food; then basic science goes out the window and people think (Calories in) - (Calories out) = (Mass gained or lost). Unless your body is a nuclear reactor, that statement violates the basis of physics and chemistry.
Now, mass in is easy to understand but it is extremely difficult to control long term for most people. Mass out is where the differences lie. Some food is easily digested, some isn't. Food types (high fiber is almost the polar opposite of high sugar; high protein helps with controlling mass in, and so on), exercise, gut bacteria, quantities above your ability to digest, general health level, etc. all affect the mass out portion.