>>109838695What the fuck do you mean forcing a calorie deficient scenario
Anon, calorie surplus and deficits are what determines weight gain you fucking retarded ass motherfucker
The whole point of the question is to prove to you that the actual calorie origins don't matter for weight gain, what matters is the calorie surplus or deficit. If I eat 3000 calories of pure refined sugar or 3000 calories of grass fed organic steak, it doesn't fucking matter because the laws of thermodynamics don't give a fuck. There is 1000 calories of surplus energy which will be stored and the way your body does that is through storing it as fat. At no point does my body say "Oh well actually the sugar is an 'empty calorie' so I'm going to magically create more weight out of thin air" nor does it say "Well the steak is rich in micronutrients, so I'm actually going to destroy this energy from ever existing and violate the law of conservation of energy"
Even if my diet was 1500 calories of sugar and 1500 calories of steak, it doesn't matter, the surplus is still 1000 calories. Even if somehow my body decided to store 1000 calories worth of sugar only as fat, the total weight actually gained on the scale doesn't change. It would be the same as if it were 1000 calories of streak. Fat is fat, the caloric origin of it doesn't matter.
Even if we take your extreme scenario where we imagine somehow that the full 1500 calories of sugar is instantenously stored as fat, okay then 500 calories of fat will need to be used up anyway to meet my energy requirements, still leaving a total surplus of 1000 calories.
Did you fail school?
>Those are macronutrients too anon.You don't understand the function of a definition then. Another straw to the "I'm speaking to a sub 80 IQ African" pile
