[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/fit/ - Fitness


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: k51.jpg (121 KB, 949x842)
121 KB
121 KB JPG
guys i think theres something more to cico.

I ate like crazy and STILL lost 3kg, and i dont exercise
>>
Uhm actually sweaty you can’t defy the law of thermodynamics so try again thx x
>>
>>76870737
individuals can differ by as much as 50-100% in REE (resting energy expenditure) according to studies, even when controlling for the usual factors (e.g. weight, height, physical activity and lean body mass such as muscle). Consider how much people differ in height, even within the same sex–a difference that’s obvious when you stand in line and notice some people towering above others. Now double that variation: that’s roughly how much humans differ in metabolism. It would be like routinely encountering both seven-footers and dwarfs, to a surprising extent.
>>
if you wanted to measure potential for leanness, the pertinent phenotype is ‘excessive production of waste-heat energy’–basically the human equivalent of an old, inefficient car. Which is weird because it’s not obvious and even maladaptive, because efficiency is generally understood to be ‘good’, yet for this contrived scenario in which the putative goal is leanness, it is advantageous to be inefficient. You want your body to be burning fat, instead of storing it for the famine that never comes. Likewise, for overall athleticism, the relevant phenotype is being either fast or slow-twitch muscle dominant. Or for academic potential, that would be IQ.

If your metabolism sucks (or, specifically, at the left-side of the normal distribution), then weight loss will be exceptionally hard. Even when cutting calories absurdly low, the weight does not come off , even with cardio and other exercise as otherwise predicted by the online TDEE/RMR calculators and apps
>>
>>76870737
>I ATE LIKE CRAZY BRO
Cico is not based on "feels". Post numbers or stfu
>>
>>76870797
like eating close to 3000 on half of my days of the month

i weigh myself once a month
>>
>>76870786
There are more useful things the body can do with its energy expenditure, heat production is not the only thing. For example when you take steroids your energy expenditure increases because you're building muscle and repairing cells at an increased rate.
>>
OP here, i was strugging with a big sore that became an open wound, i didnt take antibiotics im just letting itself sort itself out and taking zinc supplements and outting ointments on it.

Could being seriously sick effect me when i was eating so much still?
>>
>>76870737
2500kcal tdee
day 1: 3000kcal
day 2: 2000kcal
day 3: 2700kcal
day 4: 1800kcal
day 5: 3000kcal
day 6: 1900kcal
day 7: 2700kcal
Congrats, you're already on a deficit. What I'm saying is, as long as there are big enough fluctuations, you might really think you are eating a lot most days, even though it evens out to a deficit. This is the same problem skinnyfags have, that are trying to gain weight. "b-but I'm eating close to 3000kcal 'most' days"..



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.