/fit/ - Fitness, Health, Exercise, Dieting, etc

Calorie counting is reductionist thinking. Macronutrients are not equivalent in the way they are utilized, distributed, or stored in organisms even when calories are the same and there is no guarantee that should a given number of a calories be expended that a reduction of a specific class of stored energy is burned in favor of other kinds.

>>139878

In English please?

>>139879

Calorie counting is a delusion. There is no guarantee you will lose fat from counting calories, but there is an excellent chance you will lose body fat when you start counting and restricting dietary fat—especially unsaturated fats—because fat tissue contains fat and unsaturated fats are more difficult to shed than saturated fat. Avoid fat to stop being fat. Yes, it's really that simple.

>>139878

Just because it's not perfect doesn't mean it should be thrown into the trash. Biology is a messy, inexact science, but calorie counting is the best tool we have for estimating how much energy you're taking in and expending.

>>139881

>calorie counting is the best tool we have

Many people approach it with the premise that they can reliably use it to stop being fat when there was never any reason to believe it was better than vaguely telling someone to eat less. If you continue to eat exactly the same things but in a lesser total quantity and maintain the same amount of daily activity, you will probably lose weight, but there was never a guarantee it would be fat lost instead of muscle mass or even bones. In reality people also eat according to cravings and will eat somewhat randomly.

Keeping track of fat intake has always been the best tool to avoid body fat accumulation because body fat is made primarily from dietary fat. Keeping track of unsaturated fat intake is even more useful as it is more difficult to shed than saturated fat, and when fats are made de novo, they are most commonly saturated fats which are used to repair cells and their mitochondria and are burned more easily.

>>139880

Jesus fucking christ. Not this bullshit again. Eating fats does not make you fat. I am almost a pure fat burner (High protein, high fat, <50g carbs/day) and I'm shredded.

>>140038

You seem easily triggered. Maybe if you weren't eating so much fat, you'd chill out.

Hilakivi-Clarke, Leena, Elizabeth Cho, and Ighovie Onojafe. High-fat diet induces aggressive behavior in male mice and rats. Life sciences 58.19 (1996): 1653-1660.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3205(96)00140-3

>The present study investigated whether dietary fat increases aggressive behavior in male mice and rats. High fat consumption may elevate circulating estrogen levels and estrogens, in turn, are associated with various non-reproductive behaviors, such as male aggression. The animals were assigned to two groups including those consuming a diet high in polyunsaturated fats (43% calories from fat) and those consuming a lowfat diet (16% calories from fat). […] The latency to first aggressive encounter was significantly shorter among the male animals kept on a high-fat diet than those males kept on a low-fat diet. Furthermore, the time spent exhibiting aggression was longer in the high-fat groups. Serum levels of estradiol (E2) were elevated by 2-fold in the male animals consuming a high-fat diet, when compared with the male animals kept on a low-fat diet. These findings suggest that dietary fat can increase aggressive behavior in male mice and rats, possibly by elevating circulating E2 levels.

Khodabandehloo, Fatimeh, et al. Brain tissue oxidative damage as a possible mechanism for the deleterious effect of a chronic high dose of estradiol on learning and memory in ovariectomized rats. Arquivos de Neuro-psiquiatria 71.5 (2013): 313-319.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23689409

Holmes, Melissa M., Jennifer K. Wide, and Liisa AM Galea. Low levels of estradiol facilitate, whereas high levels of estradiol impair, working memory performance on the radial arm maze. Behavioral Neuroscience 116.5 (2002): 928.

http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0735-7044.116.5.928

Galea, Liisa AM, et al. Gonadal hormone levels and spatial learning performance in the Morris water maze in male and female meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Hormones and Behavior 29.1 (1995): 106-125.

https://doi.org/10.1006/hbeh.1995.1008

>High Estradiol females exhibited significantly longer latencies to reach the hidden platform, indicating poorer acquisition, than did either males (P = 0.025) or Low Estradiol females (for Blocks, 2, 3, 4, and 6, P = 0.037). Male superiority in spatial learning performance was evident only when High Estradiol females were compared to males. […] There was, however, a significant correlation between plasma estradiol levels in females and retention, with higher estradiol levels being associated with poorer retention. These results suggest that levels of estradiol in adult female meadow voles are significantly related to spatial learning, with low levels of estradiol being associated with better spatial learning.

>>139880

>Calorie counting is a delusion. There is no guarantee you will lose fat from counting calories

I did. I lost 60lbs. Sit on it and spin, faggot.

>>140096

Sure, but you made no argument against my claims which never excluded the possibility of someone losing weight and even fat specifically when they count calories. It's like me saying there's no guarantee you will make it to Canada if you walk in a semi-random direction and you replying, "I made it to Canada though." I don't think counting calories gives you a certain, direct path to Canada, and nobody has ever made a convincing argument that it does as far as I can tell.

The more I learn about fitness, the more I realize that calories in vs calories out is a generally useful tool, but far removed from the actual mechanics of weight gain/loss. The human body is a complex thing.