4 ms·

IF migi be a good took for some to help lower their calories but weight loss will always be dependent on calories out > calories in

auslegung 6y ago
This has been pretty thoroughly debunked as an over simplification. Hormones play a large role in weight loss. Hormones get out of whack with lack of sleep, poor food, too much alcohol, being lethargic, not getting enough sun, depression, anxiety, etc. I feel like I just described the many Americans.
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  BS. The human body obeys the laws of physics
  - d0mine 6y ago
    It is not helpful. There are too many variables in practice. Trivial example: milk -- different effect depending on genes.
    - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
      I dont even know how this is a rebuttal. The body does not have the capability to create mass out of nothing. If you consume fewer calories than the body uses, you will lose weight. It literally doesn't matter what you eat as long as Calories In < Calories Out Losing weight on the Fast Food Diet https://newsfeed.time.com/2014/01/05/teacher-loses-37-pounds-after-three-month-mcdonalds-diet/ https://newsfeed.time.com/2014/01/05/teacher-loses-37-pounds... Twinkie Diet https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor... Beer Diet https://www.menshealth.com/weight-loss/a19532411/the-beer-diet/ https://www.menshealth.com/weight-loss/a19532411/the-beer-di...
      - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
        > The body does not have the capability to create mass out of nothing. A human body is not an antimatter reactor. It expels mass constantly. It's obviously thermodynamically possible to get less energy out of a piece of food simply by shitting out slightly more of it.
  - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
    Yes, but a human body is not a bomb calorimeter. It doesn't perfectly combust everything that goes into the mouth.
    - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
      "A battery will discharge if the outgoing current is less than the incoming current" "Yeah, but the current controller won't perfectly convert the incoming electricity to a state usable by the battery" Okay, so? What is the actual argument here?
      - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
        There are far more variables that affect how much energy a human body can get out of a piece of food than affect how much energy you will get out of a battery. If you define "calories in" as "how much the person actually metabolized from the food they ate", then "calories in - calories out" will obviously determine their weight, but you can't actually measure calories in using that definition, so it's a useless definition. For dietary purposes, the definition people are using is the number on the packet of food they ate, which there is obviously no law of thermodynamics requiring that it perfectly match their change in weight.
  - Volundr 6y ago
    Yeah, hence why this is an oversimplification, not false. Yes weight loss/gain is by definition the difference between calories in vs calories out, yet this simple definition makes it seem like losing weight should be as simple as a) reducing calories in, or b) increasing calories out, when in actuality reducing calories in may reduce calories out by the same or even greater amounts. It turns out these two variables are not independent, but instead connected by an extremely complex network of factors. So yes, for many people, framing weight-loss as calories in vs calories out is a dramatic oversimplification.
- huffmsa 6y ago
  You will gain weight if you add more energy than you expend. You are not immune to thermodynamics. What you're describing are things that reduce the body's energy expenditure. Buy making it think it's in high cortisol survival mode. But even then you can still lose weight if you're eating less than you're using.
  - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
    > You will gain weight if you add more energy than you expend. You are not immune to thermodynamics. Do you honestly believe that the only way that a body can lose mass is by burning it off? That belief shouldn't stand up to even the most cursory examination. You probably have an entire room in your house dedicated to another way of losing mass.
    - huffmsa 6y ago
      Okay, allow me to be hyper technical. You body will hold excess energy in it's fat tissue if you consume more energy via food than you expend through metabolic active. If you consume less energy via food than you are expending through metabolic activity, your body will convert fat tissue into the molecules it needs to meet it's energy needs. You don't just shit the pounds off.
      - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
        It's obviously thermodynamically possible for your body to be more or less efficient at metabolizing energy from the food you consume. The remainder will be excreted. Someone who is lactose tolerant will gain more weight from a glass of milk than someone who is lactose intolerant because they are capable of getting energy from the lactose. The person who is lactose intolerant literally will shit those future pounds off.

auslegung 6y ago

This has been pretty thoroughly debunked as an over simplification. Hormones play a large role in weight loss. Hormones get out of whack with lack of sleep, poor food, too much alcohol, being lethargic, not getting enough sun, depression, anxiety, etc. I feel like I just described the many Americans.

NikolaeVarius 6y ago
BS. The human body obeys the laws of physics
- d0mine 6y ago
  It is not helpful. There are too many variables in practice. Trivial example: milk -- different effect depending on genes.
  - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
    I dont even know how this is a rebuttal. The body does not have the capability to create mass out of nothing. If you consume fewer calories than the body uses, you will lose weight. It literally doesn't matter what you eat as long as Calories In < Calories Out Losing weight on the Fast Food Diet https://newsfeed.time.com/2014/01/05/teacher-loses-37-pounds-after-three-month-mcdonalds-diet/ https://newsfeed.time.com/2014/01/05/teacher-loses-37-pounds... Twinkie Diet https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor... Beer Diet https://www.menshealth.com/weight-loss/a19532411/the-beer-diet/ https://www.menshealth.com/weight-loss/a19532411/the-beer-di...
    - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
      > The body does not have the capability to create mass out of nothing. A human body is not an antimatter reactor. It expels mass constantly. It's obviously thermodynamically possible to get less energy out of a piece of food simply by shitting out slightly more of it.
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  Yes, but a human body is not a bomb calorimeter. It doesn't perfectly combust everything that goes into the mouth.
  - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
    "A battery will discharge if the outgoing current is less than the incoming current" "Yeah, but the current controller won't perfectly convert the incoming electricity to a state usable by the battery" Okay, so? What is the actual argument here?
    - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
      There are far more variables that affect how much energy a human body can get out of a piece of food than affect how much energy you will get out of a battery. If you define "calories in" as "how much the person actually metabolized from the food they ate", then "calories in - calories out" will obviously determine their weight, but you can't actually measure calories in using that definition, so it's a useless definition. For dietary purposes, the definition people are using is the number on the packet of food they ate, which there is obviously no law of thermodynamics requiring that it perfectly match their change in weight.
- Volundr 6y ago
  Yeah, hence why this is an oversimplification, not false. Yes weight loss/gain is by definition the difference between calories in vs calories out, yet this simple definition makes it seem like losing weight should be as simple as a) reducing calories in, or b) increasing calories out, when in actuality reducing calories in may reduce calories out by the same or even greater amounts. It turns out these two variables are not independent, but instead connected by an extremely complex network of factors. So yes, for many people, framing weight-loss as calories in vs calories out is a dramatic oversimplification.
huffmsa 6y ago
You will gain weight if you add more energy than you expend. You are not immune to thermodynamics. What you're describing are things that reduce the body's energy expenditure. Buy making it think it's in high cortisol survival mode. But even then you can still lose weight if you're eating less than you're using.
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  > You will gain weight if you add more energy than you expend. You are not immune to thermodynamics. Do you honestly believe that the only way that a body can lose mass is by burning it off? That belief shouldn't stand up to even the most cursory examination. You probably have an entire room in your house dedicated to another way of losing mass.
  - huffmsa 6y ago
    Okay, allow me to be hyper technical. You body will hold excess energy in it's fat tissue if you consume more energy via food than you expend through metabolic active. If you consume less energy via food than you are expending through metabolic activity, your body will convert fat tissue into the molecules it needs to meet it's energy needs. You don't just shit the pounds off.
    - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
      It's obviously thermodynamically possible for your body to be more or less efficient at metabolizing energy from the food you consume. The remainder will be excreted. Someone who is lactose tolerant will gain more weight from a glass of milk than someone who is lactose intolerant because they are capable of getting energy from the lactose. The person who is lactose intolerant literally will shit those future pounds off.