3 ms·

>the thermodynamic argument (calories in vs calories out) is only mostly true in broad strokes, as a trend. It's not "mostly true". It's literally the only con

>the thermodynamic argument (calories in vs calories out) is only mostly true in broad strokes, as a trend. It's not "mostly true". It's literally the only concrete truth in this whole field. If you consume X calories more than you burn you are _guaranteed_ to gain Y weight.

InclinedPlane 9y ago
I'm sorry to hear that a network malfunction prevented you from reading the remainder of my post. To reiterate, it's true only in broad strokes, human metabolism is not precisely linear, there is a non-trivial amount of "slop" in the balance. You can "consume more calories than you burn" and yet still lose weight, and you can consume fewer calories than that while "burning more calories" and end up gaining weight. If you consume many more calories or many fewer calories then you will inevitably gain or lose weight. But to maintain a healthy weight, or to maintain consistent weight loss if you are over weight, the details of what you eat are just as important as the calorie counts. Taken together, there is very strong evidence that diets which concentrate on what you eat versus those that concentrate on calorie counting are vastly more effective. But, you don't have to take my word for it: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296
beagle3 9y ago
> It's literally the only concrete truth in this whole field It's true only in the useless tautological sense, where your definition of "consume" and "burn" are so convoluted as to be useless. Wood pulp is carbohydrates, which you can confirm in a bomb caloriemeter releases ~4kcal/g when burnt. But when people consume it, they derive ~0kcal/g. If you think people don't consume wood pulp, you might want to look at [0] and at the wikipedia entry for microcrystalline cellulose. Gasoline is even denser at ~12kcal/g, but still provides only ~0kcal/g. There are much subtler examples, where at atwater factors have been shown to be ~30% different in in different measurements (between population and even for the same individual in different times). Which means that the difference between "what you consume" and "the energy you derive" is actually a random variable, with very significant variance. And that's just the food intake; just sitting in a cold room requires much more energy than sitting in a warm room; And consuming a liter of ice cold water actually costs you ~36 kcal after your body temperature renormalizes. So, really, it's very broad strokes. [0] https://qz.com/223742/there-is-a-secret-ingredient-in-your-burgers-wood-pulp/ https://qz.com/223742/there-is-a-secret-ingredient-in-your-b...

InclinedPlane 9y ago

I'm sorry to hear that a network malfunction prevented you from reading the remainder of my post. To reiterate, it's true only in broad strokes, human metabolism is not precisely linear, there is a non-trivial amount of "slop" in the balance. You can "consume more calories than you burn" and yet still lose weight, and you can consume fewer calories than that while "burning more calories" and end up gaining weight. If you consume many more calories or many fewer calories then you will inevitably gain or lose weight. But to maintain a healthy weight, or to maintain consistent weight loss if you are over weight, the details of what you eat are just as important as the calorie counts. Taken together, there is very strong evidence that diets which concentrate on what you eat versus those that concentrate on calorie counting are vastly more effective. But, you don't have to take my word for it: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296

beagle3 9y ago

> It's literally the only concrete truth in this whole field It's true only in the useless tautological sense, where your definition of "consume" and "burn" are so convoluted as to be useless. Wood pulp is carbohydrates, which you can confirm in a bomb caloriemeter releases ~4kcal/g when burnt. But when people consume it, they derive ~0kcal/g. If you think people don't consume wood pulp, you might want to look at [0] and at the wikipedia entry for microcrystalline cellulose. Gasoline is even denser at ~12kcal/g, but still provides only ~0kcal/g. There are much subtler examples, where at atwater factors have been shown to be ~30% different in in different measurements (between population and even for the same individual in different times). Which means that the difference between "what you consume" and "the energy you derive" is actually a random variable, with very significant variance. And that's just the food intake; just sitting in a cold room requires much more energy than sitting in a warm room; And consuming a liter of ice cold water actually costs you ~36 kcal after your body temperature renormalizes. So, really, it's very broad strokes. [0] https://qz.com/223742/there-is-a-secret-ingredient-in-your-burgers-wood-pulp/ https://qz.com/223742/there-is-a-secret-ingredient-in-your-b...