6 ms·

There is no starvation mode that makes the body disobey the laws of conservation of energy. Sorry. Your wife is either not in a deficit due to the calories not

by leshow 11y ago

There is no starvation mode that makes the body disobey the laws of conservation of energy. Sorry. Your wife is either not in a deficit due to the calories not being low enough (or not exercising enough) or she's simply eating more and not recording it.

mistermann 11y ago
Do you believe it is literally as simple as calories in calories out, for all people equally?
- grecy 11y ago
  The analogy is to a gas tank in a car. If you put in 5 gallons per day, but only use 4 gallons per day, there is an extra gallon building up each day, and it will be stored somewhere (fat in the body). Some bodies will be more inclined to store this than others, and store it in different places. If you put in 3 gallons per day, and burn 4 gallons per day, there is a deficit, and the extra will be burned from stored reserves (stored fat). It must, otherwise the machine would be incapable of traveling the distance that 4 gallons requires, and would not function. When that runs out, you die (i.e. starving to death). Yes, it factually has to be that simple, for all creatures, there is no possible other way. It is extremely simple science and logic. Notice I said simple, NOT easy. They are two different things. Also note that for all people the speed at which your body adjusts to eating less than you burn will be different, as will exactly how your body responds to your eating less than you burn. For example, if you seriously under eat calories, it's widely accepted your body will think it's starving to death, and will conserve energy it normally would not - i.e, you'll be cold, your immune system will be weaker, your digestion will not be optimal, your hair and skin will deteriorate and not be replenished well etc. etc. So even though you're eating less than you were burning last week/month, you might not lose (much/any) weight because your body has quickly adapted and changed the amount of calories required as best as it can by shutting down, or minimizing non-critical functions. You could imagine an intelligent car doing the same thing when it realizes it isn't being fed enough energy for the demands being put on it - it might turn off the air conditioning, lower itself, jack up the tire pressures, fold in rear view mirrors and limit itself to a top speed of 30mpg all in the name of more efficiency. Source: I got involved with Weight Watchers years back - have personally been involved with literally thousands of people losing tens of thousands of pounds combined. WW is by very definition eat less energy than you burn. (well, the new formula gives a little bonus if you eat lots of fiber and another if you eat very little fat, but it hardly makes a difference)
  - mistermann 11y ago
    Me: Do you believe it is literally as simple as calories in calories out, for all people equally? You: Yes, it factually has to be that simple, for all creatures, there is no possible other way. It is extremely simple science and logic. And then you proceed to point out several items (that I agree with) showing that calories in / calories out doesn't fully describe the complexity. In your "If you put in 3 gallons per day, and burn 4 gallons per day" analogy, the devil is encapsulated within "burn", in that the fuel efficiency of the car can vary - therefore while the energy going in is a constant, the energy being burned will vary. And additionally when dealing with humans, ability to absorb energy from fuel in also varies (many calories come out as waste, how many varies by individual.)
    - grecy 11y ago
      > then you proceed to point out several items (that I agree with) showing that calories in / calories out doesn't fully describe the complexity. That's because for 99.999% of people to lose weight, they don't need to understand / deal with anything more complex than calories in / calories out. When your grandma wants to use a computer, she doesn't need to understand interrupts and CPU instruction sets anymore than a 3 year old needs to understand HTTP and TCP/IP to surf the web. It really is this simple. Figure out how many calories you should be eating daily to maintain based on your height, weight, age, sex and activity level. (And let's be perfectly honest here, for anyone that's obese or higher, it's an ungodly amount of calories per day - so many that it would be very difficult for anyone to eat that many calories per day without eating massive amounts of fat (fried food) and sugar (soda). So cut out just soda for most people and that's enough) Eat 200-300 less than that per day, for 3 months, and do a tiny bit more exercise than you normally do - and by tiny bit for someone that does nothing, that means walk an extra hundred yards to your car daily, nothing more. No running on the treadmill, no caring about carbs vs. fat vs. protein. Hell, if you stay 200-300 under what you require, it doesn't even matter if you still eat fast food like you used to. After 3 months if you have not lost weight, cut down another 200-300 per day, and continue for another 3 months. Repeat. You will lose weight, it can not be any other way, and the "complexities" mentioned above need not be considered, because they over complicate the issue.
- Evgeny 11y ago
  If a person eats less energy than his body requires to function on a daily basis, where would the extra fat mass come from?
  - grecy 11y ago
    The body will burn it's stored fat to make up the energy deficit. The reason it stored fat in the first place is so that it will have energy to function when food supplies are not good. Where exactly the body chooses to take fat from first, I don't know or care. Like digging a hole, it doesn't matter where exactly you take dirt from. When there is no (or very little) stored fat, the body will start eating up it's own muscles to survive, but that's bad.
- leshow 11y ago
  For weight loss/gain? If you're in a caloric deficit you will lose weight, if you're in a surplus you will gain weight. I'm not sure how much simpler I can state it.
  - mistermann 11y ago
    Ah, so you've changed terms rather than answer the question, ok. People seems strangely emotionally attached to sides in this topic.
    - leshow 11y ago
      I haven't changed any terms, you added "for all people equally?" and I'm not sure what you mean by that. It's obvious the caloric requirements vary by individual and thus are not equal between people. But there is no magic starvation mode where you stop losing weight even if you are in a deficit. I'm emotionally attached to people not using their critical thinking skills and thinking rationally, not about food.
      - mistermann 11y ago
        The change of terms was "calories in / calories out" --> "caloric deficit", which ignores the stomach's efficiency in absorbing calories from ingested food (calories in), as well as individual metabolism (burn rate at rest, efficiency of caloric usage). Some people can absorb calories from food more efficiently than others, one theory with some scientific support is it is due to different enzymes in the digestive system.
        simplexion 11y ago
        Are you upset that your wife is a fat liar?
        mistermann 11y ago
        Please be civil.
grecy 11y ago
See my comment below. It's widely accepted there is indeed a starvation mode that we (and all mammals) evolved to deal with uncertain food supply. When faced with severely less calories than it needs, your body can, for example: ^ Run at a colder temperature (ever notice you get cold really easily when you've been hungry for a long time?) ^ Not do such a good job replacing hair and skin cells (notice how hungry people have funny looking skin and "crappy" hair?)
- leshow 11y ago
  Sorry but the amount of calories the body is capable of conserving by lowering temperature and cell proliferation is not as significant as you think. Also the fact that there are processes to conserve energy says nothing about the level of caloric restriction necessary to achieve these conservation measures. It's far from widely accepted. If the body was able to go into 'starvation mode' and run more and more efficiently, famine wouldn't be such an issue. The fact that you think a western woman with a large caloric deficit is enough to engage some kind of magical 'starvation mode' laughable.
  - mistermann 11y ago
    Why is it laughable? I don't at all see the logic here.
    - leshow 11y ago
      It's not a widely held theory in the scientific community. It's more likely she's underreporting her food intake. "If the body was able to go into 'starvation mode' and run more and more efficiently, famine wouldn't be such an issue."

by leshow 11y ago

mistermann 11y ago

Do you believe it is literally as simple as calories in calories out, for all people equally?

grecy 11y ago
The analogy is to a gas tank in a car. If you put in 5 gallons per day, but only use 4 gallons per day, there is an extra gallon building up each day, and it will be stored somewhere (fat in the body). Some bodies will be more inclined to store this than others, and store it in different places. If you put in 3 gallons per day, and burn 4 gallons per day, there is a deficit, and the extra will be burned from stored reserves (stored fat). It must, otherwise the machine would be incapable of traveling the distance that 4 gallons requires, and would not function. When that runs out, you die (i.e. starving to death). Yes, it factually has to be that simple, for all creatures, there is no possible other way. It is extremely simple science and logic. Notice I said simple, NOT easy. They are two different things. Also note that for all people the speed at which your body adjusts to eating less than you burn will be different, as will exactly how your body responds to your eating less than you burn. For example, if you seriously under eat calories, it's widely accepted your body will think it's starving to death, and will conserve energy it normally would not - i.e, you'll be cold, your immune system will be weaker, your digestion will not be optimal, your hair and skin will deteriorate and not be replenished well etc. etc. So even though you're eating less than you were burning last week/month, you might not lose (much/any) weight because your body has quickly adapted and changed the amount of calories required as best as it can by shutting down, or minimizing non-critical functions. You could imagine an intelligent car doing the same thing when it realizes it isn't being fed enough energy for the demands being put on it - it might turn off the air conditioning, lower itself, jack up the tire pressures, fold in rear view mirrors and limit itself to a top speed of 30mpg all in the name of more efficiency. Source: I got involved with Weight Watchers years back - have personally been involved with literally thousands of people losing tens of thousands of pounds combined. WW is by very definition eat less energy than you burn. (well, the new formula gives a little bonus if you eat lots of fiber and another if you eat very little fat, but it hardly makes a difference)
- mistermann 11y ago
  Me: Do you believe it is literally as simple as calories in calories out, for all people equally? You: Yes, it factually has to be that simple, for all creatures, there is no possible other way. It is extremely simple science and logic. And then you proceed to point out several items (that I agree with) showing that calories in / calories out doesn't fully describe the complexity. In your "If you put in 3 gallons per day, and burn 4 gallons per day" analogy, the devil is encapsulated within "burn", in that the fuel efficiency of the car can vary - therefore while the energy going in is a constant, the energy being burned will vary. And additionally when dealing with humans, ability to absorb energy from fuel in also varies (many calories come out as waste, how many varies by individual.)
  - grecy 11y ago
    > then you proceed to point out several items (that I agree with) showing that calories in / calories out doesn't fully describe the complexity. That's because for 99.999% of people to lose weight, they don't need to understand / deal with anything more complex than calories in / calories out. When your grandma wants to use a computer, she doesn't need to understand interrupts and CPU instruction sets anymore than a 3 year old needs to understand HTTP and TCP/IP to surf the web. It really is this simple. Figure out how many calories you should be eating daily to maintain based on your height, weight, age, sex and activity level. (And let's be perfectly honest here, for anyone that's obese or higher, it's an ungodly amount of calories per day - so many that it would be very difficult for anyone to eat that many calories per day without eating massive amounts of fat (fried food) and sugar (soda). So cut out just soda for most people and that's enough) Eat 200-300 less than that per day, for 3 months, and do a tiny bit more exercise than you normally do - and by tiny bit for someone that does nothing, that means walk an extra hundred yards to your car daily, nothing more. No running on the treadmill, no caring about carbs vs. fat vs. protein. Hell, if you stay 200-300 under what you require, it doesn't even matter if you still eat fast food like you used to. After 3 months if you have not lost weight, cut down another 200-300 per day, and continue for another 3 months. Repeat. You will lose weight, it can not be any other way, and the "complexities" mentioned above need not be considered, because they over complicate the issue.
Evgeny 11y ago
If a person eats less energy than his body requires to function on a daily basis, where would the extra fat mass come from?
- grecy 11y ago
  The body will burn it's stored fat to make up the energy deficit. The reason it stored fat in the first place is so that it will have energy to function when food supplies are not good. Where exactly the body chooses to take fat from first, I don't know or care. Like digging a hole, it doesn't matter where exactly you take dirt from. When there is no (or very little) stored fat, the body will start eating up it's own muscles to survive, but that's bad.
leshow 11y ago
For weight loss/gain? If you're in a caloric deficit you will lose weight, if you're in a surplus you will gain weight. I'm not sure how much simpler I can state it.
- mistermann 11y ago
  Ah, so you've changed terms rather than answer the question, ok. People seems strangely emotionally attached to sides in this topic.
  - leshow 11y ago
    I haven't changed any terms, you added "for all people equally?" and I'm not sure what you mean by that. It's obvious the caloric requirements vary by individual and thus are not equal between people. But there is no magic starvation mode where you stop losing weight even if you are in a deficit. I'm emotionally attached to people not using their critical thinking skills and thinking rationally, not about food.
    - mistermann 11y ago
      The change of terms was "calories in / calories out" --> "caloric deficit", which ignores the stomach's efficiency in absorbing calories from ingested food (calories in), as well as individual metabolism (burn rate at rest, efficiency of caloric usage). Some people can absorb calories from food more efficiently than others, one theory with some scientific support is it is due to different enzymes in the digestive system.
      - simplexion 11y ago
        Are you upset that your wife is a fat liar?
        mistermann 11y ago
        Please be civil.

grecy 11y ago

See my comment below. It's widely accepted there is indeed a starvation mode that we (and all mammals) evolved to deal with uncertain food supply. When faced with severely less calories than it needs, your body can, for example: ^ Run at a colder temperature (ever notice you get cold really easily when you've been hungry for a long time?) ^ Not do such a good job replacing hair and skin cells (notice how hungry people have funny looking skin and "crappy" hair?)

leshow 11y ago
Sorry but the amount of calories the body is capable of conserving by lowering temperature and cell proliferation is not as significant as you think. Also the fact that there are processes to conserve energy says nothing about the level of caloric restriction necessary to achieve these conservation measures. It's far from widely accepted. If the body was able to go into 'starvation mode' and run more and more efficiently, famine wouldn't be such an issue. The fact that you think a western woman with a large caloric deficit is enough to engage some kind of magical 'starvation mode' laughable.
- mistermann 11y ago
  Why is it laughable? I don't at all see the logic here.
  - leshow 11y ago
    It's not a widely held theory in the scientific community. It's more likely she's underreporting her food intake. "If the body was able to go into 'starvation mode' and run more and more efficiently, famine wouldn't be such an issue."