Jimmae
Brownlow Medallist
Every single molecule that is a key part of bioenergetic processes has a different calorie value per gram, and those are still just more precise estimates. Every single human can burn through these differently due to how their muscles work, how their cell mitochondria work, how the organisms in their digestive track interact with it, their liver, general availability of other components of the biologic processes, other processes making use of particular molecules... a whole host of factors.Jim. Jim. Jim.
Please separate out the facts from opinions. Calories are calories. The same as kilograms are kilograms.
Calories OUT take into account the thermodynamic effect of different types of foods. For example a calorie of protein IN also results in some proportion of OUT- an ever so slightly higher proportion of OUT than a calorie of carbs.
What's more, a person's cell mitochondria can change in terms of optimal function for a variety of environmental reasons, including change in diet, not just a change in calorie intake.
It's really not, and I'm half tempted to see if you can even define what a calorie is.BUT
Calories in Vs calories OUT is ALL encompassing. Anyone who says otherwise does NOT understand what a calorie actually is.
You also have a minimum amount of fat you can consume, otherwise it becomes hazardous to your health. This assists with cellular function and hormone synthesis, fat-soluble nutrient uptake, to name a few.Now if you mean that you can lose weight in but have different composition of weight loss sure. Presumably most people by now realise that when you’re losing weight you should keep protein high and keep weight on the bar in the gym else you’ll probably lose muscle. ALTHOUGH even then it’s been shown (by McDonald and others) that you can regain lost muscle relatively easily. It’s a lot harder to GAIN muscle than REgain.
He's listed as 86, which is just the 3 kgs above his junior weight, but I tend to agree that he's probably closer to 90kgs than that, say 88.I happen to think Stocker needs to lose both muscle and fat. I once recall reading of a sports scientist who held the opinion Kouta was a wondeful athelte ‘but they made him get too big’.
I think Stocker is 5kg too big. If he lost it and it turned out that was wrong, the muscle loss wouldn’t be that hard to regain.
I think he doesn't need to lose any total muscle, just not work on his upper body quite so strongly. I think he'd play well enough at around 85kgs, but that's an indirect measure of the kind of physical performance you want to see from him. He needs to be a hair quicker, and he certainly needs to be more consistent in his first steps, and generally more economical with how he runs in open space, particularly when he's not going at 90%+ max.






