4 ms·
Simple question is, "Where did the energy go?" First guess would be that the bodies of the fat eaters produced more heat, perhaps on account of a less efficie
by lucas_membrane 8y ago
Simple question is, "Where did the energy go?" First guess would be that the bodies of the fat eaters produced more heat, perhaps on account of a less efficient metabolism of fat. Couldn't that be measured directly with a thermometer? Other guess would be that the fat eaters were more active, producing more mechanical energy. That would be a very interesting possibility to explore. A few decades back, my reading led me to think that conventional wisdom was that fat-burning exercise was aerobic, ie requiring oxygen and breathing. Could burning fat require more exertion to acquire the oxygen?
Does the “not all calories are identical” assertion reduce to "the number of calories of heat obtained when a food is burned in a flame outside the body (the number of calories on the label) is not equal to the net number of useful calories obtained when the food is metabolized?"
250 calories per day is only about 1 kg per month of weight loss. This is not trivial compared to typical weight loss results, but it is quite a bit less than what people searching for diet advice would consider a game-changer. And it is not clear if there are other consequences of changing the composition of the diet over the long term of steady weight loss that most dieters need.
- masonic 8y agoonly about 1 kg per month That's 26 pounds in one year. For most people, that's a game-changer.
- AstralStorm 8y agoThis means the diet likely had an appetite suppressing effect, not different burn efficiency. Alternatively their adjustment was not controlled for water intake or retention. Note the calories were not controlled just energy adjusted based on weight loss. So the diets were not exactly same calories. A diet that causes more water retention would be adjusted less so could potentially get more loss in the end. (Or vice versa, it is tricky.) This is all old hat but it is admirable someone reproduced earlier Cambridge studies which showed the same effect 10 years ago. Now, go out there and figure out the difference that causes appetite suppression or burn increase. Or if your methodology was junk.
- lucas_membrane 8y agoAsk someone starting a diet how long they think it will take to lose the weight they want to lose. Not many will say that it's a year or more. More common is to try to lose some weight between the end-of-year holidays and the beach season.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 8y agoI'm on a diet (fine tuned for me by a professional), and I'm decreasing 1.2 kg _per week_. 1 per month is not that much of you want to lose a lot of weight. I do eat carbs within my diet, but it's selected on purpose: - 80 calories worth of cereals (I use cereals for diabetics, so I can eat 30g of those) - Up to 800g of fruit (some of it is excluded, like grapefruit) The fruit is the real trick: it makes you feel satisfied, when you eat it with right timing, even if you are on 700 calories/day (which is basically starvation. First 3 days are terrible, then the body feels resigned and you feel like you can deal with it. After 6 weeks that's roughly 10kg lost...
- gremlinsinc 8y agoKeto's easier to stick to though than other diets...it's the only diet that's ever worked for me... and there's a whole subreddit of success stories... So, it's definitely not 'just' a fad diet. Pick what works for you, but I've lost 60 pounds since September 15th on a combination keto+intermittent fasting+crossfit regimen .. but I was over 500 to start...now I'm 452.