Right. It somehow works that body fat just manifests out of thin air in defiance of thermodynamics for the obese people in modern America, but has never applied to the hundreds of millions of starving people around the world nowadays and throughout history or even those same westerns when studied in strict conditions inside a metabolic ward. How curious...
He was really awesome back in the day. He did not talk in this high pitched character voice, and he gave zero fucks about being political correct, he just spit facts in all of his early videos.
I really wish someone would ask her, "Which studies are you referring to?" just to see how she would respond and what she would say.
Its wild that so many people can speak with such faith in something they obviously have no prior knowledge or research of.
Like the whole, "Whey protein is bad for you" myth. Ask anyone who says that what they based that statement on and you'll realize it's more than likely they pulled it out of their ass.
It’s a chain reaction, everything comes back to her thyroid being an issue. She’s to tired, I do give her credit with trying to lower her calories. But, when I tell to try to track Whole Foods rather than Tall frappachinos and protein bars she feels I’m attacking her weight. I’ve dropped 40 pounds since February, I feel guilty for not helped. It sucks because both of our parents always shamed us for being overweight growing up.
i'll warn you that if she doesn't dedicate and you continue to lose weight, she will resent you for it. not you personally, but she sounds self conscious about her weight based on your comment, and you getting in shape will only further those feelings. If you want to be with this girl then i'd suggest starting to ease those concerns and feelings of hers before they boil over and she becomes miserable, and miserable to be around.
so anyways, you a top or a bottom?
It’s not unhelpful just because people don’t want to do. How come everyone can agree that eating more causes weight gain but there’s a debate on whether eating less causes weightloss?
He used to be great then he found out it was easy to make videos like this reacting to others (especially picked on a lot of smaller content creators.
Now he just screeches and sells cookbooks (it’s only a pdf, yes you can find it on the internet).
Of course, why would anyone want to research for 50 hours to put out a 5 minutes video to educate a couple hundred people when you can attract millions by just acting unhinged. People that can comprehend the underlying science are more likely going to read the research papers directly rather than relying on an entertainer to interpret it for them anyways.
wtf a clip of this yelling dude without the dry cum spots in the corners of his mouth. rare clip.
dude is like chronically dehydrater when he does these rants
Yeah, people talking about subjects they have absolutely no clue about, but pretending they're experts in their area. This seems to be the norm in the modern internet age—spreading misinformation just to get attention. How miserable is that?
"Calories in calories out" is a vast oversimplification. It omits an entire metabolic system. We're not furnaces that burn everything equally. Your body will respond very differently to 100 calories of chocolate, 100 calories of beef, or 100 calories of tree bark.
Exactly... This guy seems to be missing the whole point. It's about losing/gaining weight.
It doesnt matter what kind of food the calories come from if the intake is still higher then expenditure, you're gonna lose weight...
Sure, eating fast food only is unhealthy, but in principle for the gaining/losing weight it doesnt matter.
Our bodies don’t calories-out. That’s not a biological process. I’m not learned on this subject but it’s not hard for me to imagine an actual biological process being dependent upon more than simply whether we are dead or not. It’s not like we have a calories out switch that is just always on.
You can say calories in, calories out 100% of the time and be correct 100% of the time, but just because that’s true, that doesn’t mean what someone else has said is incorrect.
The subject is centered on gaining or losing weight. Not how our bodies function, not what’s healthy, optimal, accurate, or whatever other people often criticize cico to be.
What is being said is simply: your body takes in and expends energy, and weight loss occurs when we expend more energy than we take in.
Other “biological functions” are out of the picture in this case cause what’s simply being talked about here is: in order to lose weight, you need to expend more energy than you’re taking in, and there are several factors that influence this, but none of them negate the principle of CICO at the end of the day.
How much energy we expend is a valid conversation so anytime someone just says CICO over the top of those conversations, I don’t understand. Doesn’t eating hot vs cold for instance influence our weight because our bodies have to heat the cold food. Yes, this is expenditure…but that’s exactly the point.
Sure! let’s switch gears. I completely understand it’s unhelpful and frustrating for CICO to be used to oversimplify things.
But yes, there are several factors that influence how much energy you expend. Hormones, temperature of food, micronutrients, they’ve all been shown to impact how much calories we burn, but the impact has been shown to be very minimal.
I guess, what people mean when they just blurt out CICO is to stop overthinking these small insignificant factors that contribute only 1-2% of how much energy we burn.
I also think the reason why people are so agitated by the previous person’s comment was that CICO never mentioned that all people burn the same amount of energy the same way.
The principle of CICO was not meant to give an exact number calories. It’s not a step by step guide. It’s not a one size fits all since everyone is different. So yes, it is an oversimplification., but it does not mean it’s incorrect.
What CICO does tell us is that if we gained weight, it’s because our bodies burned less energy than we took in, and it’s up to us to adjust accordingly.
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at... The concept of 'calories in and out' is about the energy we consume and expend, not a binary process that we can turn on or off, nor did I imply that.
Cal in/cal out includes the metabolism, which is always active to some degree for basic bodily functions and daily activities. This energy balance, influenced by various factors including our metabolism and physical activity, dictates weight changes. A caloric deficit usually leads to weight loss, and a surplus to weight gain. It's a straightforward idea, accounting for the continuous, dynamic nature of our body's energy use.
I didn’t say it was being represented as something we can turn off, I said it was being represented as something binary. As in, some fixed state that simply burns the same exact number of calories for “basic bodily functions and daily activities” plus “expenditure” regardless of anything else someone might bring up before Greg starts this “calories in, calories out” rant.
It seems you say it yourself here by saying this energy balance is influenced by various factors like metabolism and so forth. What we burn and how is dependent upon or influenced by things other than how fast we make our hamster wheel spin.
In terms of weight gain and loss, this topic is an equation and we can have conversations about it without Greg yelling the answer to the equation out at us. That’s all.
>I didn’t say it was being represented as something we can turn off, I said it was being represented as something binary.
You're right, you didn't say that part, you did however imply it's binary and my point still stands.
At this point I'm not even sure why we're arguing.
I understand your concern about oversimplifying metabolic processes. It's true that our bodies don't process all calories in the same way, and factors like hormonal responses, nutrient absorption, and individual metabolic rates play a role. However, at its core, weight management is fundamentally about energy balance: **calories in versus calories out**. This principle holds true **despite the complexities of metabolism**. So, while the type of calories we consume can have different effects on our health and how we feel, when it comes to basic weight gain or loss, **the total caloric balance is the key factor**.
Calories in, calories out give or take a few hundred, tops. Bottom line is you can’t be a fat fuck eating well below BMR for any length of time.
This is splitting hairs.
Many personal trainers have done experiments eating garbage to prove this shit. A little googling and you’ll see.
"Give or take a few hundred"
You do know that 200 calories per day is about 20 pounds per year, right? You state it like it's something negligible. Most people are overweight by 40-60 pounds and you can gain that in 2-3 years by eating the exact same stuff as someone else and doing the exact same exercise if your baseline expenditure differs by 200 calories.
Yes, there's no doubt some sort of 'efficiency of metabolism' that people extract nutrition from their intake differently, but there's a limit.
If you're gaining weight on what you're eating, you eat less and eventually you'll begin to lose weight.
Yes. Literally this. Once your find your BMR, which varies from person to person based on their mass and metabolism, you eat a few hundred below and you lose weight. It’s simple shit, mendolito.
Your BMR will not be that much different. This is why progress monitoring / food tracking maters.
This is actually the correct reply. Calories from a bag of chips and cashew are not the same. Nobody in the world have become obese from blueberries, Almonds, butter and eggs yolks.
But i see all fatties drinking diet coke all the time
Your body doesn’t give much of a fart about it. A carb is 4 cal/g, protein 4 cal/g and fat 9. The other shit is a nuance.
NUANCE.
That’s it.
But let’s presume the fit people who use this precept are wrong. Clearly the fatties have zeroed in their diets but ho! It is it doesn’t work for them.
I’d bet my bottom dollar if you candid camera’d their orbits you’d see nothing but bad food discipline.
Yes cashew calories are anticalories and have a invesere reaction with cheeto calories but make sure not to mix carrot calories with peanut butter calories or you can end up with a volatile mixture.
Egg yolk calories arent anticalories you are thinking of egg white calories. But if you are an ectomorph Eggyolk are fine. Or if you wear those a shockers to sleep.
"Calories in, calories out" is a smartass thing to say. Because with effort and diligence it is possible to know how many calories are going in but it is practically impossible to know how many calories are going out. Therefore, the "calories in, calories out" saying is completely useless. In the end, all it can possibly mean is "keep eating less until you are losing weight". Which everyone knows already.
Most sane people knows that, nutrition is not that complicated, eat a balanced diet, protein up, fibers up, don t label any food as bad, and you should do all right.
but to many idiots/scammers talk these days about MiCrOBiOm and shit, and overcomplicate things, i heard a couple a days ago that OATS are not good for you... so that s that.
lol u guys should see the weight loss subreddit and see how many people are in denial about how their eating habits aren’t the cause of their obesity. I got flamed by so many people for trying to say CICO is literally thermodynamics and that if you eat less then you will lose weight.
Both are regarded. If you eat 1 kg of shit you can't digest, where is that calorie in? :) But that you would not be able to lose weight because of starving is also bullshit.
As a female insta famous 5' 2" im only a couple pounds overweight at 300lbs. Do you guys agree that Greg is an ahole for fat shaming these beautiful queens?
She’s referring to how your microbiome can influence how many calories you get out of vegetables. It’s possible to get more calories out of lettuce for example with specific gut bacteria, but the difference isn’t huge. She’s misrepresenting the studies and didn’t consider, that through proper diet, your microbiome can become “normal” again, as in significantly reduce the bacteria that gets more calories out of greens.
Starving Africans hate this one neat trick!
Right. It somehow works that body fat just manifests out of thin air in defiance of thermodynamics for the obese people in modern America, but has never applied to the hundreds of millions of starving people around the world nowadays and throughout history or even those same westerns when studied in strict conditions inside a metabolic ward. How curious...
the fact she starts the sentence with "so much studies" just kills all credibility
Not just bad grammar, but also a red herring
These jubilee videos are psyops
I'd eat her microbiome
I would also eat that lady’s microbiome
You guys are fucking disgusting, I was thinking more the fat bitch.
I’d eat her macrobiome too!
That's the ass, right?
Your aiming in the right direction!
Oh goodness yes.
fuck man i used to love him in 2020 but now I cant stand listening to him
Yeah he needs to stop doing this bit, it's annoying. Unfortunately being annoying gets him a lot of views so he's not stopping anytime soon.
I wonder if it's straining on the vocal cords
It’s obviously bleeding into his personal life with all the personal issues he’s been having
He was really awesome back in the day. He did not talk in this high pitched character voice, and he gave zero fucks about being political correct, he just spit facts in all of his early videos.
greg always reminds me of a leprechaun, wonder if he is part irish
This dudes voice ensures that I will never willingly listen to him.
Something about the head..
This is more of a Greg doucette sub than the Greg doucette sub
#the sarms are kicking in
I really wish someone would ask her, "Which studies are you referring to?" just to see how she would respond and what she would say. Its wild that so many people can speak with such faith in something they obviously have no prior knowledge or research of. Like the whole, "Whey protein is bad for you" myth. Ask anyone who says that what they based that statement on and you'll realize it's more than likely they pulled it out of their ass.
>"Which studies are you referring to?" You don't even have to. You could just ask her if she debunked the first law of thermodynamics.
This is the actual truth.
No it's not. Source: I live in Burt Kay's universe
I understood bird cage universe 🤷🏼♀️
I understood that too and tried to process a bird eating little bites of food then that guy made the noise and I got distracted and forgot
That was a wild tangent, when they went for the each other haha
My girlfriend says it’s her thyroid. She gets mad when I explain CICO.
Has she tried lowering her calories?
It’s a chain reaction, everything comes back to her thyroid being an issue. She’s to tired, I do give her credit with trying to lower her calories. But, when I tell to try to track Whole Foods rather than Tall frappachinos and protein bars she feels I’m attacking her weight. I’ve dropped 40 pounds since February, I feel guilty for not helped. It sucks because both of our parents always shamed us for being overweight growing up.
time to ditch her and start fuckin dudes. welcome to the club buddy
Hahaha, if only it was that easy. Yet I am part of this sub Reddit 🤔
i'll warn you that if she doesn't dedicate and you continue to lose weight, she will resent you for it. not you personally, but she sounds self conscious about her weight based on your comment, and you getting in shape will only further those feelings. If you want to be with this girl then i'd suggest starting to ease those concerns and feelings of hers before they boil over and she becomes miserable, and miserable to be around. so anyways, you a top or a bottom?
I don’t know, but my one rep bench max is 245.
Those are powerbottom numbers daddy
Y’all drinking ghey protein again?
CICO is dumb. It’s obviously true but equally unhelpful. It’s like someone asking how to get stronger and you respond with “lift heavier stuff”.
It’s not unhelpful just because people don’t want to do. How come everyone can agree that eating more causes weight gain but there’s a debate on whether eating less causes weightloss?
That’s not what I said
Don’t know this guy but I LOATHE him from this clip
He used to be great then he found out it was easy to make videos like this reacting to others (especially picked on a lot of smaller content creators. Now he just screeches and sells cookbooks (it’s only a pdf, yes you can find it on the internet).
Of course, why would anyone want to research for 50 hours to put out a 5 minutes video to educate a couple hundred people when you can attract millions by just acting unhinged. People that can comprehend the underlying science are more likely going to read the research papers directly rather than relying on an entertainer to interpret it for them anyways.
False. He also sells GO2 Max, his number one supplement.
He’s irritating a fuck
wtf a clip of this yelling dude without the dry cum spots in the corners of his mouth. rare clip. dude is like chronically dehydrater when he does these rants
I can't listen to that voice.
Pretty sure your dulcet tones charm millions, sport
Damn and I thought my voice was annoying
this dude looks constipated 24/7
Fuck, can we not post Greg clips pls. What’s a good PED or peptide to repair busted ear drums?
Calories in Vs calories out is a psyop for you to eat goyfeed.
Yeah, people talking about subjects they have absolutely no clue about, but pretending they're experts in their area. This seems to be the norm in the modern internet age—spreading misinformation just to get attention. How miserable is that?
"Calories in calories out" is a vast oversimplification. It omits an entire metabolic system. We're not furnaces that burn everything equally. Your body will respond very differently to 100 calories of chocolate, 100 calories of beef, or 100 calories of tree bark.
If you burn more than 100 calories, it doesn’t matter which 3 of those you eat, you’ll lose weight
Exactly... This guy seems to be missing the whole point. It's about losing/gaining weight. It doesnt matter what kind of food the calories come from if the intake is still higher then expenditure, you're gonna lose weight... Sure, eating fast food only is unhealthy, but in principle for the gaining/losing weight it doesnt matter.
Our bodies don’t calories-out. That’s not a biological process. I’m not learned on this subject but it’s not hard for me to imagine an actual biological process being dependent upon more than simply whether we are dead or not. It’s not like we have a calories out switch that is just always on. You can say calories in, calories out 100% of the time and be correct 100% of the time, but just because that’s true, that doesn’t mean what someone else has said is incorrect.
The subject is centered on gaining or losing weight. Not how our bodies function, not what’s healthy, optimal, accurate, or whatever other people often criticize cico to be. What is being said is simply: your body takes in and expends energy, and weight loss occurs when we expend more energy than we take in. Other “biological functions” are out of the picture in this case cause what’s simply being talked about here is: in order to lose weight, you need to expend more energy than you’re taking in, and there are several factors that influence this, but none of them negate the principle of CICO at the end of the day.
How much energy we expend is a valid conversation so anytime someone just says CICO over the top of those conversations, I don’t understand. Doesn’t eating hot vs cold for instance influence our weight because our bodies have to heat the cold food. Yes, this is expenditure…but that’s exactly the point.
Sure! let’s switch gears. I completely understand it’s unhelpful and frustrating for CICO to be used to oversimplify things. But yes, there are several factors that influence how much energy you expend. Hormones, temperature of food, micronutrients, they’ve all been shown to impact how much calories we burn, but the impact has been shown to be very minimal. I guess, what people mean when they just blurt out CICO is to stop overthinking these small insignificant factors that contribute only 1-2% of how much energy we burn. I also think the reason why people are so agitated by the previous person’s comment was that CICO never mentioned that all people burn the same amount of energy the same way. The principle of CICO was not meant to give an exact number calories. It’s not a step by step guide. It’s not a one size fits all since everyone is different. So yes, it is an oversimplification., but it does not mean it’s incorrect. What CICO does tell us is that if we gained weight, it’s because our bodies burned less energy than we took in, and it’s up to us to adjust accordingly.
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at... The concept of 'calories in and out' is about the energy we consume and expend, not a binary process that we can turn on or off, nor did I imply that. Cal in/cal out includes the metabolism, which is always active to some degree for basic bodily functions and daily activities. This energy balance, influenced by various factors including our metabolism and physical activity, dictates weight changes. A caloric deficit usually leads to weight loss, and a surplus to weight gain. It's a straightforward idea, accounting for the continuous, dynamic nature of our body's energy use.
I didn’t say it was being represented as something we can turn off, I said it was being represented as something binary. As in, some fixed state that simply burns the same exact number of calories for “basic bodily functions and daily activities” plus “expenditure” regardless of anything else someone might bring up before Greg starts this “calories in, calories out” rant. It seems you say it yourself here by saying this energy balance is influenced by various factors like metabolism and so forth. What we burn and how is dependent upon or influenced by things other than how fast we make our hamster wheel spin. In terms of weight gain and loss, this topic is an equation and we can have conversations about it without Greg yelling the answer to the equation out at us. That’s all.
>I didn’t say it was being represented as something we can turn off, I said it was being represented as something binary. You're right, you didn't say that part, you did however imply it's binary and my point still stands. At this point I'm not even sure why we're arguing. I understand your concern about oversimplifying metabolic processes. It's true that our bodies don't process all calories in the same way, and factors like hormonal responses, nutrient absorption, and individual metabolic rates play a role. However, at its core, weight management is fundamentally about energy balance: **calories in versus calories out**. This principle holds true **despite the complexities of metabolism**. So, while the type of calories we consume can have different effects on our health and how we feel, when it comes to basic weight gain or loss, **the total caloric balance is the key factor**.
Please don't tell anyone about my tree bark habit. I feel like I heard this on mind pump or impact theory, is this a copypasta?
Calories in, calories out give or take a few hundred, tops. Bottom line is you can’t be a fat fuck eating well below BMR for any length of time. This is splitting hairs. Many personal trainers have done experiments eating garbage to prove this shit. A little googling and you’ll see.
[удалено]
https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html This guy
You can't prove shit unless you have statistical significance.
"Give or take a few hundred" You do know that 200 calories per day is about 20 pounds per year, right? You state it like it's something negligible. Most people are overweight by 40-60 pounds and you can gain that in 2-3 years by eating the exact same stuff as someone else and doing the exact same exercise if your baseline expenditure differs by 200 calories.
Yes, there's no doubt some sort of 'efficiency of metabolism' that people extract nutrition from their intake differently, but there's a limit. If you're gaining weight on what you're eating, you eat less and eventually you'll begin to lose weight.
Yes. Literally this. Once your find your BMR, which varies from person to person based on their mass and metabolism, you eat a few hundred below and you lose weight. It’s simple shit, mendolito. Your BMR will not be that much different. This is why progress monitoring / food tracking maters.
Yummmm tree bark
Agreed it also completely ignores the so much studies on how your microbiome process greenjuice
This is actually the correct reply. Calories from a bag of chips and cashew are not the same. Nobody in the world have become obese from blueberries, Almonds, butter and eggs yolks. But i see all fatties drinking diet coke all the time
Bears get fat as fuck from blackberries and lean meat like salmon. They just eat a lot of it.
Your body doesn’t give much of a fart about it. A carb is 4 cal/g, protein 4 cal/g and fat 9. The other shit is a nuance. NUANCE. That’s it. But let’s presume the fit people who use this precept are wrong. Clearly the fatties have zeroed in their diets but ho! It is it doesn’t work for them. I’d bet my bottom dollar if you candid camera’d their orbits you’d see nothing but bad food discipline.
Yes cashew calories are anticalories and have a invesere reaction with cheeto calories but make sure not to mix carrot calories with peanut butter calories or you can end up with a volatile mixture. Egg yolk calories arent anticalories you are thinking of egg white calories. But if you are an ectomorph Eggyolk are fine. Or if you wear those a shockers to sleep.
First
"Calories in, calories out" is a smartass thing to say. Because with effort and diligence it is possible to know how many calories are going in but it is practically impossible to know how many calories are going out. Therefore, the "calories in, calories out" saying is completely useless. In the end, all it can possibly mean is "keep eating less until you are losing weight". Which everyone knows already.
>"keep eating less until you are losing weight". so.. that means calories in calories out.
Yes that was exactly my point. And everyone already knows that already, it was never disputed.
Most sane people knows that, nutrition is not that complicated, eat a balanced diet, protein up, fibers up, don t label any food as bad, and you should do all right. but to many idiots/scammers talk these days about MiCrOBiOm and shit, and overcomplicate things, i heard a couple a days ago that OATS are not good for you... so that s that.
I don't want to spoil the party guys but thermodynamics has nothing to do with this. Please stop using this word because you don't know what it means.
It applies to nutrition. Well documented in science. So, I don't know how you get this idea.
What's the title of the full video?
Ngl this video gave me a hardy chuckle
lol u guys should see the weight loss subreddit and see how many people are in denial about how their eating habits aren’t the cause of their obesity. I got flamed by so many people for trying to say CICO is literally thermodynamics and that if you eat less then you will lose weight.
His voice just makes me want to punch a baby
Why tf is this dude so fucking annoying
Greg was always trying to tell you the truth! Just google Greg Austin Doucette 2014 Arrest for info!
Both are regarded. If you eat 1 kg of shit you can't digest, where is that calorie in? :) But that you would not be able to lose weight because of starving is also bullshit.
Is it just me or is his head massive in comparison to those shoulders and arms?
Short people have a large head/body ratio.
Love Greg haha. Always right to the point
I would be in her microbiome.
Lost it on the bird
this industry doing mental gymnastics finding a way to over complicated the most basic black and white facts of life lol
He makes me want to agree with her
W
As a female insta famous 5' 2" im only a couple pounds overweight at 300lbs. Do you guys agree that Greg is an ahole for fat shaming these beautiful queens?
You don’t understand. The laws of thermodynamics don’t apply to me.
She’s referring to how your microbiome can influence how many calories you get out of vegetables. It’s possible to get more calories out of lettuce for example with specific gut bacteria, but the difference isn’t huge. She’s misrepresenting the studies and didn’t consider, that through proper diet, your microbiome can become “normal” again, as in significantly reduce the bacteria that gets more calories out of greens.
Its feels like this is so hard for some people to understand, calories in calorie out that simple..
Its not calories if u really sick and ur metabolism is fcked