4 ms·

If you consume more calories than you use, you gain weight. Fat accumulation or loss is simple physics. Caffeine may have some small impact as do other stimulan

If you consume more calories than you use, you gain weight. Fat accumulation or loss is simple physics. Caffeine may have some small impact as do other stimulants, but often you see people consuming caffeine with large amounts of sugar or carbohydrates and rarely do you see those same people immediately jumping rope for 3 hours to burn off the equivalent excess calories.

fzeroracer 7y ago
Well not quite, it's never really as simple as that. People with bowel issues for example might actually consume vastly more calories than their peers but not gain as much weight due to their body being less efficient in converting caloric intake into fat. People with a fast metabolism might burn more calories per day at rest than others as well, and some of the complex interactions could involve interactions with caffeine. If people are gaining weight rapidly it's always a good idea to look at the whole picture rather than just caloric intake because that can mask the true underlying causes.
- layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
  If you consume more calories than you use/poop, you gain weight. FTFY (of course I’m discounting weight gain due to fluid accumulation if you have circulatory problems or ascites)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
hrktb 7y ago
> If you consume more calories than you use, you gain weight. People throw around this idea as if it was simple. Just the concept of calorie, which is bound to water temperature changes, is at most a vague second or third order approximation of a body’s energy intake. Petrol would be of super high calorie for instance, but it makes no sense for the body. We have no clear idea of what any food gives as energy to a body, nor how each body reacts differently to any food, nor how much of that goes out, when that potentially stored energy is used in what amount (would CO2 production measurement help in this regard ? even if so but then it might be get rid of in unexpected ways) So while the in/out idea may not be completely wrong, it’s effectively useless to anyone seriously thinking about diets.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  I'm mostly agreeing with you, but I think you may be going slightly too far. If you absorb more calories than your metabolism burns, then you gain weight. Variables are: - Calorie content of food. - Ability of your body to absorb those calories. This includes what form the calories are in (petrol, obviously, doesn't work), but also may include your gut biome, and perhaps other person-specific issues. - Your activity level (not just exercise, but non-exercise physical movement as well). - What your food does to your metabolism. Sure, if you eat too much of the wrong things, it hurts. If you exercise, it helps. But it's much more complicated than that.
  - dondawest 7y ago
    Variables are WAY MORE VARIED than that and FAR MORE EFFECTIVE to focus on than abstract notions like calories. Your body doesn't know what a calorie is, even though it's been proven that humans are UNCANNILY good at guesstimating the calorie content of various meals placed before them once they understand the concept of calories. What your body understands is: -the variables you listed -NUTRIENT TIMING -HORMONAL RESPONSES TO NUTRIENT TIMING (fasting naturally stimulates the pulsatile production of Human Growth Hormone which guys like Thiel take artificially). -The timing and quality of one's exercise and how that exercise relates to their other activity levels -- but you basically already listed that variable. TL;DR: Nutrition, FASTING, and RESISTANCE TRAINING are ancient remedies that work in ways both obvious AND even more nuanced and complicated than any of us could ever comprehend. It could be infinitely complicated. Through YEARS of trial and error, I've found that nutrient timing, near-daily intermittent fasting, and the overall guesstimation of thenmacronutrient breakdowns of the foods I DO eat, are far more effective variables to focus on than abstract concepts like "calories" that our bodies do not understand on a physical level despite the fact that we can intellectually understand what a calorie is. TL;dr of the TL;DR: imo, focusing on calories bad. Focusing on synching circadian rhythms and fasting and nutrient timing good. Source: I am jacked, ripped, shredded, whatever you wanna call it. my body's that way right now, my body has been this way for years, yes im bragging but I'm happy to post pics and prove I'm not bullshitting anyone. and I'm completely drug free and I've never taken a steroid or any hormonal supplent in my entire life. I got this way after a few years of intermittent fasting, careful electrolyte supplementation, and microdosing kratom and caffeine as a pre-workout, then alternating between lifting heavy and light and making the gym a near daily habit while taking as few rest days as possible like my Natty hero Jack LaLanne. I can guarantee that anyone who focuses on these aforementioned points of focus, over the course of years, will get the exact bodily aesthetics they want without drugs because I currently have the exact body I want, ive had it for years now, and I'm totally drug free and honestly it feels like a miracle. People shit on "kinobody" on YouTube but he's right on the money about 95% plus of fitness wisdom imo. If you can get past his performative douchebag persona, his knowledge and mental frames are real, simple, logical, and powerful. He has languaged his bodily transformation in a very effective way, IMO. :)
0xcde4c3db 7y ago
> Fat accumulation or loss is simple physics. No, it isn't. The biochemistry controlling nutrient uptake or release by different tissues is incredibly complex and nowhere near fully understood, which is part of the reason that studies like this one are interesting. We don't really know how any given calorie surplus or deficit maps to subcutaneous fat vs. visceral fat vs. thermogenesis vs. muscle vs. fatty liver. We don't really know why some people develop T2D at a normal weight, some people only develop it if they're obese, and some people never develop it despite being morbidly obese. Pretending that this is a simple and solved problem doesn't really help anybody except authors of diet books.

fzeroracer 7y ago

Well not quite, it's never really as simple as that. People with bowel issues for example might actually consume vastly more calories than their peers but not gain as much weight due to their body being less efficient in converting caloric intake into fat. People with a fast metabolism might burn more calories per day at rest than others as well, and some of the complex interactions could involve interactions with caffeine. If people are gaining weight rapidly it's always a good idea to look at the whole picture rather than just caloric intake because that can mask the true underlying causes.

layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
If you consume more calories than you use/poop, you gain weight. FTFY (of course I’m discounting weight gain due to fluid accumulation if you have circulatory problems or ascites)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

hrktb 7y ago

> If you consume more calories than you use, you gain weight. People throw around this idea as if it was simple. Just the concept of calorie, which is bound to water temperature changes, is at most a vague second or third order approximation of a body’s energy intake. Petrol would be of super high calorie for instance, but it makes no sense for the body. We have no clear idea of what any food gives as energy to a body, nor how each body reacts differently to any food, nor how much of that goes out, when that potentially stored energy is used in what amount (would CO2 production measurement help in this regard ? even if so but then it might be get rid of in unexpected ways) So while the in/out idea may not be completely wrong, it’s effectively useless to anyone seriously thinking about diets.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
I'm mostly agreeing with you, but I think you may be going slightly too far. If you absorb more calories than your metabolism burns, then you gain weight. Variables are: - Calorie content of food. - Ability of your body to absorb those calories. This includes what form the calories are in (petrol, obviously, doesn't work), but also may include your gut biome, and perhaps other person-specific issues. - Your activity level (not just exercise, but non-exercise physical movement as well). - What your food does to your metabolism. Sure, if you eat too much of the wrong things, it hurts. If you exercise, it helps. But it's much more complicated than that.
- dondawest 7y ago
  Variables are WAY MORE VARIED than that and FAR MORE EFFECTIVE to focus on than abstract notions like calories. Your body doesn't know what a calorie is, even though it's been proven that humans are UNCANNILY good at guesstimating the calorie content of various meals placed before them once they understand the concept of calories. What your body understands is: -the variables you listed -NUTRIENT TIMING -HORMONAL RESPONSES TO NUTRIENT TIMING (fasting naturally stimulates the pulsatile production of Human Growth Hormone which guys like Thiel take artificially). -The timing and quality of one's exercise and how that exercise relates to their other activity levels -- but you basically already listed that variable. TL;DR: Nutrition, FASTING, and RESISTANCE TRAINING are ancient remedies that work in ways both obvious AND even more nuanced and complicated than any of us could ever comprehend. It could be infinitely complicated. Through YEARS of trial and error, I've found that nutrient timing, near-daily intermittent fasting, and the overall guesstimation of thenmacronutrient breakdowns of the foods I DO eat, are far more effective variables to focus on than abstract concepts like "calories" that our bodies do not understand on a physical level despite the fact that we can intellectually understand what a calorie is. TL;dr of the TL;DR: imo, focusing on calories bad. Focusing on synching circadian rhythms and fasting and nutrient timing good. Source: I am jacked, ripped, shredded, whatever you wanna call it. my body's that way right now, my body has been this way for years, yes im bragging but I'm happy to post pics and prove I'm not bullshitting anyone. and I'm completely drug free and I've never taken a steroid or any hormonal supplent in my entire life. I got this way after a few years of intermittent fasting, careful electrolyte supplementation, and microdosing kratom and caffeine as a pre-workout, then alternating between lifting heavy and light and making the gym a near daily habit while taking as few rest days as possible like my Natty hero Jack LaLanne. I can guarantee that anyone who focuses on these aforementioned points of focus, over the course of years, will get the exact bodily aesthetics they want without drugs because I currently have the exact body I want, ive had it for years now, and I'm totally drug free and honestly it feels like a miracle. People shit on "kinobody" on YouTube but he's right on the money about 95% plus of fitness wisdom imo. If you can get past his performative douchebag persona, his knowledge and mental frames are real, simple, logical, and powerful. He has languaged his bodily transformation in a very effective way, IMO. :)

0xcde4c3db 7y ago

> Fat accumulation or loss is simple physics. No, it isn't. The biochemistry controlling nutrient uptake or release by different tissues is incredibly complex and nowhere near fully understood, which is part of the reason that studies like this one are interesting. We don't really know how any given calorie surplus or deficit maps to subcutaneous fat vs. visceral fat vs. thermogenesis vs. muscle vs. fatty liver. We don't really know why some people develop T2D at a normal weight, some people only develop it if they're obese, and some people never develop it despite being morbidly obese. Pretending that this is a simple and solved problem doesn't really help anybody except authors of diet books.