It depends what the person eats. If you decided to eat a tub of ice cream, even after burning off the calories you ate, it's still possible the sugar from the food will turn to fat and be stored.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but that's what I've been told.
Are you talking about the post or this guys comment about not eating for 45 days?
But! It does bot actually matter what the person eats, it only matters how many calories. This reason for common confusion is because foods like ice cream have more calories for how much they fill you up.
But if you eat 5000 calories a day of ice cream, lemonade and pop tarts, but you burn off 5500 calories a day, you will lose weight. You will feel like shit, be malnourished and starving, but you will still lose weight.
I swear I'm not mad and its common confusion so don't think I'm pissed. I do know I am right however, I can show you research or explain more in detail if you want but I'm an exercise science major(3rd year) and person trainer who studies nutrition so I know what I'm talking about.
Hey, no hard feelings at all! I've just been always told that if you eat poorly. Like the pop tarts and all, you might lose more bone density and muscle mass, as opposed to fat, which you want t o lose.
I'd love to see your research! Sounds like a fascinating read!
Yes it's true that you'll lose more muscle if you eat pop tarts and stuff because you'll be lacking protein. But calories in calories out determines fat loss.
Muscle is a separate thing. You can build muscle in a calorie deficit and you can lose muscle in a calorie surplus. But you CANNOT lose fat in a surplus or gain fat in a deficit.
You sure you would be fascinated by evidence supporting calories in calories out? Even I don't think it's a fascinating read and I'm supposed to know this shit for my career.
That said, here is a meta analysis of 28 controlled studies where they fed people different macro balanced diets between fats and carbs and weight loss was not different between groups when calories were equated. So 80 percent fat diet with 3000 calories does not burn more fat than a 3000 calorie diet of 80 percent carbohydrates if your burning say, 3500 calories a day.
Will I lose weight ?
← View full post
Just don't eat for 45 days straight. Great results.
--
notsaying4life
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Good idea only that you might be dead before 45 days
--
d0esnormalmatter
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
That wasn't the question, chief. The question is will you lose weight? And the answer is yes.
--
[Old Memory]
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Not necessarily actually.
It depends what the person eats. If you decided to eat a tub of ice cream, even after burning off the calories you ate, it's still possible the sugar from the food will turn to fat and be stored.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but that's what I've been told.
--
d0esnormalmatter
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
Are you talking about the post or this guys comment about not eating for 45 days?
But! It does bot actually matter what the person eats, it only matters how many calories. This reason for common confusion is because foods like ice cream have more calories for how much they fill you up.
But if you eat 5000 calories a day of ice cream, lemonade and pop tarts, but you burn off 5500 calories a day, you will lose weight. You will feel like shit, be malnourished and starving, but you will still lose weight.
I swear I'm not mad and its common confusion so don't think I'm pissed. I do know I am right however, I can show you research or explain more in detail if you want but I'm an exercise science major(3rd year) and person trainer who studies nutrition so I know what I'm talking about.
--
Aliceee93
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
[Old Memory]
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
That’s what I was told if you eat shit and still burn more than you eat you’ll still gain weight
--
d0esnormalmatter
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well that is 100% bullshit. If you are in a calorie deficit and don't lose weight, you would have to be dead! Its physics, its impossible to hack.
Hey, no hard feelings at all! I've just been always told that if you eat poorly. Like the pop tarts and all, you might lose more bone density and muscle mass, as opposed to fat, which you want t o lose.
I'd love to see your research! Sounds like a fascinating read!
--
d0esnormalmatter
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Yes it's true that you'll lose more muscle if you eat pop tarts and stuff because you'll be lacking protein. But calories in calories out determines fat loss.
Muscle is a separate thing. You can build muscle in a calorie deficit and you can lose muscle in a calorie surplus. But you CANNOT lose fat in a surplus or gain fat in a deficit.
You sure you would be fascinated by evidence supporting calories in calories out? Even I don't think it's a fascinating read and I'm supposed to know this shit for my career.
That said, here is a meta analysis of 28 controlled studies where they fed people different macro balanced diets between fats and carbs and weight loss was not different between groups when calories were equated. So 80 percent fat diet with 3000 calories does not burn more fat than a 3000 calorie diet of 80 percent carbohydrates if your burning say, 3500 calories a day.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.stephanguyenet.com/meta-analysis-impact-of-carbohydrate-vs-fat-calories-on-energy-expenditure-and-body-fatness/&ved=2ahUKEwiw0MzAjunmAhWCB50JHTgMCZ0QFjACegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw1gTfO--6jjFrVKmC5TE6LX