3 ms·

It can get complicated for sure, but to the best of my knowledge it is an axiom that if you eat less than you burn, you will lose weight. Vitamins and absorpti

It can get complicated for sure, but to the best of my knowledge it is an axiom that if you eat less than you burn, you will lose weight. Vitamins and absorption rates have nothing on the laws of thermodynamics. Now, if your BMR is 2000 and you eat 2100, poor absorption can still cause you to lose weight. But if your BMR is 2000 and you eat 1000, there is no possible way you can gain weight. If you know how to gain weight on a calorie deficit, there's a lot of starving people in this world that would love to learn how.

DannyBee 11y ago
"that if you eat less than you burn," Sure, but both the absorption and the burn rates are affected by other factors. So calculating calories out is not as simple as looking at a nutrition label. In fact, it's infinitely more complex: "Instead, the total caloric value is calculated by adding up the calories provided by the energy-containing nutrients: protein, carbohydrate, fat and alcohol. Because carbohydrates contain some fiber that is not digested and utilized by the body, the fiber component is usually subtracted from the total carbohydrate before calculating the calories." IE note: these are all things that are going to be digested or not digested (and thus, really count or not really count as calories) at different rates in different people. (Certainly, there is a max value, but this method won't give you that either :P)
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  There is no variability in fiber absorption. You cannot digest fiber. Your burn rate doesn't drop below your BMR. Basically there's lots of variability when you are eating more than your BMR- you could gain weight, or you could not. But when you eat less than your BMR, you have a calorie deficit. Period. It doesn't matter if your digestion is working well or poorly, or if you exercised or if you didn't. You have a deficit. As for nutrition labels, I'm not aware of any hidden calories that aren't counted in the label but will be digested. Like I said, humans cannot digest fiber, at all.
  - tracker1 11y ago
    The amount and ratio of water soluble to water insoluble fiber to other substances in food, in addition to how much breakdown there is during intake (such as a smoothie, vs raw berries) definitely has an effect on absorption. For that matter, taking in additional fiber will help inhibit absorption. There's also a given persons reaction to different macros over time... sugar vs fat vs protein have different chemical reactions in the body, where too much sugar in some will have different affects over time. Some will gain weight, and show signs of metabolic syndrome, others may have the issues, but not outwardly show via weight gain. Others still won't develop diabetes.. and this can be on roughly the same diet. BMR isn't in and of itself the only measure... while it's true that you will gain/lose weight depending on how many calories you take in/out... but beyond that is what types of mass are gained/lost. Most fat people don't have enough lean muscle once they're over 35-40, which means losing too much muscle (or any) is a detriment. If you start losing more than a sustainable muscle mass, you can actually be worse off. You need to take in a minimal amount of protein to maintain/gain muscle (combined with exercise to promote gaining/maintaining muscle)... with a calorie deficit enough for weight loss, but doesn't cause starvation response and metabolic slowdown. All of these are definitely variable by person.
    - sliverstorm 11y ago
      Can fiber impact absorption? Yes. Can fiber be absorbed (and digested)? No. Which was my point one comment ago. Are your macros important to health and good body composition? Yes. I usually skip that part because someone inevitably jumps in and explains how sugar is metabolized differently than fat, and then try to use that to "prove" that sugar will make you gain weight no matter what your caloric intake.
      - tracker1 11y ago
        I never meant to suggest that.. I'm only stating that there's a lot more to it than calories alone. Though, in general if you are having enough protein in your diet (either via combined, or combinations of foods), and your macros are reasonable, most people will maintain or adjust their weight accordingly when you raise/reduce the overall calories. Unfortunately calorie restriction that goes too far may have other negative affects... and most people don't track their diets closely enough to really tell how many calories they take in on any given day. I've gotten really good at estimating, and as long as I stay below 2500-3000/day and get at least 100g of protein, I tend to do okay as far as staying in the range I am in. On the down side, when I try to make too much of a shift it winds up badly in one way or another (experiencing ketoacidosis is something I never want to experience again). Eating once a day a couple days a week (roughly 23.5 hrs between meals) I feel pretty good with. Eating too close to bed and I get an upset stomach. It's funny, but my own body has been a pretty big experiment in terms of trying different things to see what works, and what doesn't. I tend to either have every negative affect to medications, or my body stops responding to them after a while. Byetta lasted about 6 months before my body stopped responding to it, Victoza about 2. Invokana is the first diabetes medication that doesn't make me incredibly ill, and actually keeps my blood sugars stable (though I've been a little more sensitive to light, and more headaches). I truly wish I could go back a couple decades knowing what I do now. I also wish I could smack whoever started the "low fat" fad in the 70-80s, or the people behind the food pyramid. It's not that hard, really... * Get enough protein * don't eat too much * avoid too many refined foods/ingredients * Have some raw fruits and veggies * Avoid too many sweet fruits and candy Unfortunately we are genetically motivated by sweet, salty, savory foods and a lot of them. We also don't have to work as hard to get food. So, we fall into our own nature, or fight against it. Commercial interests are to maximize sales, scale, impact and that means feeding the problem. Taken farther is introducing more refinement in sweetness and saltiness of foods. Which feeds the problem more. I don't know what the solution is, I do no that limiting personal freedom and choice isn't a good answer. Improving education and reducing religious-like or commercial interests as such would be a good start though.
- Kodix 11y ago
  You're really making it sound more complex and difficult than it is. Oh, sure, it's difficult to say with certainty that 100 calories on the label will be exactly 100 calories for every person ever - but there's really not a gigantic amount of variance. Certainly it's a good enough guideline for use. It's a matter of thermodynamics more than anything else. You can't get energy from nothing. Quantifying the exact amount of energy you'll get from a food is difficult to do precisely, but the guidelines we have are good enough for use for the vast majority of people. You can be pedantic about it, but that won't change the fact that it is that simple to lose weight, as proven time and again.
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    "You're really making it sound more complex and difficult than it is." And you are suggesting it's simple with no actual data to back it up. Can you cite a single study that shows that nutrition label calories were anywhere close to actual calories burned by a person. Or any mechanism people have to find calories: Here's one that says the opposite: http://www.livescience.com/26799-calorie-counts-inaccurate.html http://www.livescience.com/26799-calorie-counts-inaccurate.h... For example, for most people, they discovered almonds have 20% less calories than "estimated". http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract That's a huge variance. "but there's really not a gigantic amount of variance." Citation needed :) "Quantifying the exact amount of energy you'll get from a food is difficult to do precisely, but the guidelines we have are good enough for use for the vast majority of people." What do you think vast majority is? Given the variance in everything else, we are probably talking 20-30% of the population. "You can be pedantic about it, but that won't change the fact that it is that simple to lose weight, as proven time and again." I'm not being pedantic about the mechanism. I'm being reasonable about the fact that the method most people have to figure out whether what they have is going to be successful is useless (IE if they can't determine how many calories they eat/burn, they can't possibly change the numbers :P)
    - sliverstorm 11y ago
      Improving the accuracy of the label is a good goal, but from your own link: Some researchers say that, on the whole, the inaccuracies in calorie estimates don't make a big difference. "For most uses, I think they're good enough," said Malden Nesheim, professor of nutrition emeritus at Cornell University, in Ithaca, N.Y., and co-author of the book "Why Calories Count" (University of California Press, 2012). People tend to eat a variety of foods, not just almonds or starches. So overestimating or underestimating the calories in one particular food will likely not have a huge impact on a person's daily calorie intake, Nesheim said. And generally, the omissions in the Atwater system tend to result in overestimates, meaning they likely wouldn't interfere with weight loss. "It would only be a problem for people who want to gain weight," said Mary Ellen Camire, a professor at the University of Maine's Department of Food Science & Human Nutrition in Orono.

DannyBee 11y ago

"that if you eat less than you burn," Sure, but both the absorption and the burn rates are affected by other factors. So calculating calories out is not as simple as looking at a nutrition label. In fact, it's infinitely more complex: "Instead, the total caloric value is calculated by adding up the calories provided by the energy-containing nutrients: protein, carbohydrate, fat and alcohol. Because carbohydrates contain some fiber that is not digested and utilized by the body, the fiber component is usually subtracted from the total carbohydrate before calculating the calories." IE note: these are all things that are going to be digested or not digested (and thus, really count or not really count as calories) at different rates in different people. (Certainly, there is a max value, but this method won't give you that either :P)

sliverstorm 11y ago
There is no variability in fiber absorption. You cannot digest fiber. Your burn rate doesn't drop below your BMR. Basically there's lots of variability when you are eating more than your BMR- you could gain weight, or you could not. But when you eat less than your BMR, you have a calorie deficit. Period. It doesn't matter if your digestion is working well or poorly, or if you exercised or if you didn't. You have a deficit. As for nutrition labels, I'm not aware of any hidden calories that aren't counted in the label but will be digested. Like I said, humans cannot digest fiber, at all.
- tracker1 11y ago
  The amount and ratio of water soluble to water insoluble fiber to other substances in food, in addition to how much breakdown there is during intake (such as a smoothie, vs raw berries) definitely has an effect on absorption. For that matter, taking in additional fiber will help inhibit absorption. There's also a given persons reaction to different macros over time... sugar vs fat vs protein have different chemical reactions in the body, where too much sugar in some will have different affects over time. Some will gain weight, and show signs of metabolic syndrome, others may have the issues, but not outwardly show via weight gain. Others still won't develop diabetes.. and this can be on roughly the same diet. BMR isn't in and of itself the only measure... while it's true that you will gain/lose weight depending on how many calories you take in/out... but beyond that is what types of mass are gained/lost. Most fat people don't have enough lean muscle once they're over 35-40, which means losing too much muscle (or any) is a detriment. If you start losing more than a sustainable muscle mass, you can actually be worse off. You need to take in a minimal amount of protein to maintain/gain muscle (combined with exercise to promote gaining/maintaining muscle)... with a calorie deficit enough for weight loss, but doesn't cause starvation response and metabolic slowdown. All of these are definitely variable by person.
  - sliverstorm 11y ago
    Can fiber impact absorption? Yes. Can fiber be absorbed (and digested)? No. Which was my point one comment ago. Are your macros important to health and good body composition? Yes. I usually skip that part because someone inevitably jumps in and explains how sugar is metabolized differently than fat, and then try to use that to "prove" that sugar will make you gain weight no matter what your caloric intake.
    - tracker1 11y ago
      I never meant to suggest that.. I'm only stating that there's a lot more to it than calories alone. Though, in general if you are having enough protein in your diet (either via combined, or combinations of foods), and your macros are reasonable, most people will maintain or adjust their weight accordingly when you raise/reduce the overall calories. Unfortunately calorie restriction that goes too far may have other negative affects... and most people don't track their diets closely enough to really tell how many calories they take in on any given day. I've gotten really good at estimating, and as long as I stay below 2500-3000/day and get at least 100g of protein, I tend to do okay as far as staying in the range I am in. On the down side, when I try to make too much of a shift it winds up badly in one way or another (experiencing ketoacidosis is something I never want to experience again). Eating once a day a couple days a week (roughly 23.5 hrs between meals) I feel pretty good with. Eating too close to bed and I get an upset stomach. It's funny, but my own body has been a pretty big experiment in terms of trying different things to see what works, and what doesn't. I tend to either have every negative affect to medications, or my body stops responding to them after a while. Byetta lasted about 6 months before my body stopped responding to it, Victoza about 2. Invokana is the first diabetes medication that doesn't make me incredibly ill, and actually keeps my blood sugars stable (though I've been a little more sensitive to light, and more headaches). I truly wish I could go back a couple decades knowing what I do now. I also wish I could smack whoever started the "low fat" fad in the 70-80s, or the people behind the food pyramid. It's not that hard, really... * Get enough protein * don't eat too much * avoid too many refined foods/ingredients * Have some raw fruits and veggies * Avoid too many sweet fruits and candy Unfortunately we are genetically motivated by sweet, salty, savory foods and a lot of them. We also don't have to work as hard to get food. So, we fall into our own nature, or fight against it. Commercial interests are to maximize sales, scale, impact and that means feeding the problem. Taken farther is introducing more refinement in sweetness and saltiness of foods. Which feeds the problem more. I don't know what the solution is, I do no that limiting personal freedom and choice isn't a good answer. Improving education and reducing religious-like or commercial interests as such would be a good start though.
Kodix 11y ago
You're really making it sound more complex and difficult than it is. Oh, sure, it's difficult to say with certainty that 100 calories on the label will be exactly 100 calories for every person ever - but there's really not a gigantic amount of variance. Certainly it's a good enough guideline for use. It's a matter of thermodynamics more than anything else. You can't get energy from nothing. Quantifying the exact amount of energy you'll get from a food is difficult to do precisely, but the guidelines we have are good enough for use for the vast majority of people. You can be pedantic about it, but that won't change the fact that it is that simple to lose weight, as proven time and again.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  "You're really making it sound more complex and difficult than it is." And you are suggesting it's simple with no actual data to back it up. Can you cite a single study that shows that nutrition label calories were anywhere close to actual calories burned by a person. Or any mechanism people have to find calories: Here's one that says the opposite: http://www.livescience.com/26799-calorie-counts-inaccurate.html http://www.livescience.com/26799-calorie-counts-inaccurate.h... For example, for most people, they discovered almonds have 20% less calories than "estimated". http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract That's a huge variance. "but there's really not a gigantic amount of variance." Citation needed :) "Quantifying the exact amount of energy you'll get from a food is difficult to do precisely, but the guidelines we have are good enough for use for the vast majority of people." What do you think vast majority is? Given the variance in everything else, we are probably talking 20-30% of the population. "You can be pedantic about it, but that won't change the fact that it is that simple to lose weight, as proven time and again." I'm not being pedantic about the mechanism. I'm being reasonable about the fact that the method most people have to figure out whether what they have is going to be successful is useless (IE if they can't determine how many calories they eat/burn, they can't possibly change the numbers :P)
  - sliverstorm 11y ago
    Improving the accuracy of the label is a good goal, but from your own link: Some researchers say that, on the whole, the inaccuracies in calorie estimates don't make a big difference. "For most uses, I think they're good enough," said Malden Nesheim, professor of nutrition emeritus at Cornell University, in Ithaca, N.Y., and co-author of the book "Why Calories Count" (University of California Press, 2012). People tend to eat a variety of foods, not just almonds or starches. So overestimating or underestimating the calories in one particular food will likely not have a huge impact on a person's daily calorie intake, Nesheim said. And generally, the omissions in the Atwater system tend to result in overestimates, meaning they likely wouldn't interfere with weight loss. "It would only be a problem for people who want to gain weight," said Mary Ellen Camire, a professor at the University of Maine's Department of Food Science & Human Nutrition in Orono.