3 ms·

Calorie in, calorie out. If you have more calorie than the control group, no matter what substance that is - brownies, Cliff Bar, apples picked by Tim Cook, fru

by jitl 3y ago

Calorie in, calorie out. If you have more calorie than the control group, no matter what substance that is - brownies, Cliff Bar, apples picked by Tim Cook, fruit juice, or Coca-Cola, and you expend as much energy as control, you’re going to end up heavier. Where are the calories gonna go? They’re going to stay in the body. You put them in there, they didn’t, and you didn’t do more stuff to take them out. I think the hand wringing about natural vs processed is really about how appealing a given food is - anyone is more likely to overindulge in hyper palatable foods, so if natural foods are less palatable it’s good for that reason. Fruit (juice) is an example of a natural food that can be hyper palatable. So, beware just as you’d beware of Cheetos or Almond Roca.

3abiton 3y ago
Intermittent fasting proved that it is not totally the case. Time plays a big role in moderating "hunger" hormones, and if fat is burned to produce keton when long periods of no glucose intake happen.
- jitl 3y ago
  I’d like to learn more about this; does its effect show up in any human studies comparing intermittent fasting vs not for the same calorie intake?
BobaFloutist 3y ago
Calories in calories out is pretty conclusively proven to not be how it works.
- jitl 3y ago
  I’m starting to think this is somehow like the Bayesian vs Frequentist debate among people who study statistics. My hastily assembled reading from googling “calorie in calorie out myth” mostly seems to discuss that changes in basal metabolic rate happen as you are trick calories (so, account for that in the equation) and that people eating hyper palatable foods tend to eat more of them (so, now you know to avoid those to make it easier to keep the calorie count under control). Also control for thermic effect of food. I’m not saying model the body as a gasoline engine. You need the complexity for the equation to balance. Calorie in calorie out is not a strategy - of course there’s a wide variety of ways to make a healthy diet and the best strategy for one person might not be the same for another. I’m not a calorie counting advocate. But I struggle to understand the alternate to calorie in calorie out - like, where else will mass/energy come from or go to in the system? Mass is summoned magically by genetics from zero point energy? Anyways, this is why I mostly look at studies that have calorie equated groups and their weight - because such a study takes into account all the little details happening inside the body, and we’re going to average the different groups to control for personal genetic and diet differences.
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    There's a very easy explanation, (well two): 1. The commonly known variation of metabolic processes means some people are just more fidgety or have their bodies generating more waste heat. You could reasonably argue this constitutes "calories out", but if it's unconscious, unmeasurable, and varies arbitrarily it doesn't really fit the paradigm of "It's simply a matter of behavioral difference" 2. The part that everyone forgets: human waste contains a non-zero amount of calories, and this varies between people. If your body thinks it doesn't have enough calories (obviously an oversimplification) it will work harder to extract more calories from what you eat. If your body thinks it has enough calories, it'll ignore calories it doesn't want and simply excrete them. The body can tune the amount of calories it gets from food based on its understanding of your environment, and so it's possible to cut down on the amount of calories you ingest and still net more calories from your food than you started with. Thus, calories in calories out is as much of a fallacy as telling people without money that all they're missing is a simple paradigm of cash in cash out, as if loans can't be adjusted based on the fed's interest rate, their landlord can't decide to charge them more, gas and food can't get more expensive, and they can't lose their job, all outside of their control. This is going to be a poor metaphor, because the human body isn't capable of this, but if a society was super reliant on energy efficiency, tried sticking uranium in a furnace and concluded that it's a poor, useless fuel, they'd be missing that through another process you can get far more energy from uranium. But that's how we look at food: caloric content is measured by literally burning it and measuring how much energy it gives off, as if that's a reasonable analogy for the human body.
- dorkwood 3y ago
  Can you explain more about this? I personally don't see anything wrong with what the original poster said, so I'd be curious to hear if I'm working with outdated information.
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    I wrote a(n overly) lengthy response to a different reply, but basically, the human body can tune itself to be more or less efficient with its calories depending on how much of a surplus it thinks it has. The very simple explanation is that human waste has a non-zero calorie content, and can be higher or lower depending on how interested your body is in extracting every last calorie from your food. This is of course without getting into satiety and the challenges of people society considers too fat being expected to just be hungry all the time, or the actual science showing that dieting is far more harmful for your body than being "overweight", just a very simple explanation for why calories in and calories out aren't as useful of a measure as everyone (including me, by the way) would love for them to be.
- gitfan86 3y ago
  Yes, all those people in concentration camps just had high metabolisms and we're not being starved by the Nazis. And all the obese Americans eating pizza and fast food regularly just have hormone issues.
  - jitl 3y ago
    That’s a pretty violent straw man you brought to this comment thread.
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    Do you think it's possible that your net consumption of calories could affect your body weight without being as straightforward or useful of a concept as commonly portrayed? Why, in a conversation about how valuable metrics are for tracking health, were you so moved as to necessitate using the Holocaust as an example? Do you think that was an appropriate comparison? Does what I said make you angry? Is it important to you to shock me, to grab my attention at any cost, in order to make your point? Is this how you would respond to someone you perceive being wrong about other points, or is it specific to this topic? I'm genuinely curious to hear your answers
    - gitfan86 3y ago
      I'm genuinely curious as to why you are avoiding the topic of this thread? Is it possible that someone who regularly eats 4000 calories of pizza and fast food in a day would gain less weight than someone who eats 800 calories of bread in a day?
mingabunga 3y ago
Here, educate yourself https://open.spotify.com/episode/1MDqwjo3TfL1w7NJo1wldR?si=AuGH_UaKTPipUZ5X_1lVOA https://open.spotify.com/episode/1MDqwjo3TfL1w7NJo1wldR?si=A...
- jitl 3y ago
  This guy says a lot of interesting things, and I like the sound of his voice. But, googling for stuff that really quantifies these effects isn’t turning up much. Like if 130 kcal of almond get absorbed in one part of the digestive tract, and 30kcal get absorbed farther down, it still sounds like 160kcal of almond is going into the body, and has to come out somewhere else, or it’s going to stay in there. Here’s some influencer content thats addressing that influencer content: https://youtu.be/LZPKTaVB1IU?si=AasQ6bP6WCinea_r?t=18s https://youtu.be/LZPKTaVB1IU?si=AasQ6bP6WCinea_r?t=18s
  - Frotag 3y ago
    I've listened to about half of each and I think I believe the spotify / Lustig argument more. For example, around 25:00 Lustig claims... "[fructose in] fruit is okay because of the fiber and the fiber is what mitigates the absorption [...] you're feeding your microbiome. that frucose isn't for you." And arouvd 10:50 Layne counters that "I could find no evidence that fiber inhibits the absorption of fructose" But searching for "fiber slows glucose absorption" on google scholar gives me a few frequently cited results [1], making me doubt Layne's research. Also in terms of background, Lustig is a professor guest starring on a podcast sponsored by various companies (including one that sells supplements [2] [3]) versus Layne who runs a company that sells workout guides / supplements [4]. Not to say there's any obvious conflict of interest here, but I think the professor actively involved in research has more credibility. --- > [the 30kcal] has to come out somewhere else, or it’s going to stay in there. That's a good point. I'd love to know what the practical difference between my gut bacteria consuming energy vs rest-of-me consuming energy is too. But yeah Lustig saying sugar was as addictive as heroin also raised a red flag for me. Maybe true in a technical sense but definitely shows he's trying to push a point (anti-corpo maybe?). [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fiber+slows+fructose+absorption https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fiber+slows+fructose+ab... [2] https://www.hubermanlab.com/episode/dr-robert-lustig-how-sugar-processed-foods-impact-your-health https://www.hubermanlab.com/episode/dr-robert-lustig-how-sug... -- see sponsors in timestamps [3] https://drinkag1.com/ https://drinkag1.com/ [4] https://biolayne.com/ https://biolayne.com/

by jitl 3y ago

3abiton 3y ago

Intermittent fasting proved that it is not totally the case. Time plays a big role in moderating "hunger" hormones, and if fat is burned to produce keton when long periods of no glucose intake happen.

jitl 3y ago
I’d like to learn more about this; does its effect show up in any human studies comparing intermittent fasting vs not for the same calorie intake?

BobaFloutist 3y ago

Calories in calories out is pretty conclusively proven to not be how it works.

jitl 3y ago
I’m starting to think this is somehow like the Bayesian vs Frequentist debate among people who study statistics. My hastily assembled reading from googling “calorie in calorie out myth” mostly seems to discuss that changes in basal metabolic rate happen as you are trick calories (so, account for that in the equation) and that people eating hyper palatable foods tend to eat more of them (so, now you know to avoid those to make it easier to keep the calorie count under control). Also control for thermic effect of food. I’m not saying model the body as a gasoline engine. You need the complexity for the equation to balance. Calorie in calorie out is not a strategy - of course there’s a wide variety of ways to make a healthy diet and the best strategy for one person might not be the same for another. I’m not a calorie counting advocate. But I struggle to understand the alternate to calorie in calorie out - like, where else will mass/energy come from or go to in the system? Mass is summoned magically by genetics from zero point energy? Anyways, this is why I mostly look at studies that have calorie equated groups and their weight - because such a study takes into account all the little details happening inside the body, and we’re going to average the different groups to control for personal genetic and diet differences.
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  There's a very easy explanation, (well two): 1. The commonly known variation of metabolic processes means some people are just more fidgety or have their bodies generating more waste heat. You could reasonably argue this constitutes "calories out", but if it's unconscious, unmeasurable, and varies arbitrarily it doesn't really fit the paradigm of "It's simply a matter of behavioral difference" 2. The part that everyone forgets: human waste contains a non-zero amount of calories, and this varies between people. If your body thinks it doesn't have enough calories (obviously an oversimplification) it will work harder to extract more calories from what you eat. If your body thinks it has enough calories, it'll ignore calories it doesn't want and simply excrete them. The body can tune the amount of calories it gets from food based on its understanding of your environment, and so it's possible to cut down on the amount of calories you ingest and still net more calories from your food than you started with. Thus, calories in calories out is as much of a fallacy as telling people without money that all they're missing is a simple paradigm of cash in cash out, as if loans can't be adjusted based on the fed's interest rate, their landlord can't decide to charge them more, gas and food can't get more expensive, and they can't lose their job, all outside of their control. This is going to be a poor metaphor, because the human body isn't capable of this, but if a society was super reliant on energy efficiency, tried sticking uranium in a furnace and concluded that it's a poor, useless fuel, they'd be missing that through another process you can get far more energy from uranium. But that's how we look at food: caloric content is measured by literally burning it and measuring how much energy it gives off, as if that's a reasonable analogy for the human body.
dorkwood 3y ago
Can you explain more about this? I personally don't see anything wrong with what the original poster said, so I'd be curious to hear if I'm working with outdated information.
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  I wrote a(n overly) lengthy response to a different reply, but basically, the human body can tune itself to be more or less efficient with its calories depending on how much of a surplus it thinks it has. The very simple explanation is that human waste has a non-zero calorie content, and can be higher or lower depending on how interested your body is in extracting every last calorie from your food. This is of course without getting into satiety and the challenges of people society considers too fat being expected to just be hungry all the time, or the actual science showing that dieting is far more harmful for your body than being "overweight", just a very simple explanation for why calories in and calories out aren't as useful of a measure as everyone (including me, by the way) would love for them to be.
gitfan86 3y ago
Yes, all those people in concentration camps just had high metabolisms and we're not being starved by the Nazis. And all the obese Americans eating pizza and fast food regularly just have hormone issues.
- jitl 3y ago
  That’s a pretty violent straw man you brought to this comment thread.
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  Do you think it's possible that your net consumption of calories could affect your body weight without being as straightforward or useful of a concept as commonly portrayed? Why, in a conversation about how valuable metrics are for tracking health, were you so moved as to necessitate using the Holocaust as an example? Do you think that was an appropriate comparison? Does what I said make you angry? Is it important to you to shock me, to grab my attention at any cost, in order to make your point? Is this how you would respond to someone you perceive being wrong about other points, or is it specific to this topic? I'm genuinely curious to hear your answers
  - gitfan86 3y ago
    I'm genuinely curious as to why you are avoiding the topic of this thread? Is it possible that someone who regularly eats 4000 calories of pizza and fast food in a day would gain less weight than someone who eats 800 calories of bread in a day?

mingabunga 3y ago

Here, educate yourself https://open.spotify.com/episode/1MDqwjo3TfL1w7NJo1wldR?si=AuGH_UaKTPipUZ5X_1lVOA https://open.spotify.com/episode/1MDqwjo3TfL1w7NJo1wldR?si=A...

jitl 3y ago
This guy says a lot of interesting things, and I like the sound of his voice. But, googling for stuff that really quantifies these effects isn’t turning up much. Like if 130 kcal of almond get absorbed in one part of the digestive tract, and 30kcal get absorbed farther down, it still sounds like 160kcal of almond is going into the body, and has to come out somewhere else, or it’s going to stay in there. Here’s some influencer content thats addressing that influencer content: https://youtu.be/LZPKTaVB1IU?si=AasQ6bP6WCinea_r?t=18s https://youtu.be/LZPKTaVB1IU?si=AasQ6bP6WCinea_r?t=18s
- Frotag 3y ago
  I've listened to about half of each and I think I believe the spotify / Lustig argument more. For example, around 25:00 Lustig claims... "[fructose in] fruit is okay because of the fiber and the fiber is what mitigates the absorption [...] you're feeding your microbiome. that frucose isn't for you." And arouvd 10:50 Layne counters that "I could find no evidence that fiber inhibits the absorption of fructose" But searching for "fiber slows glucose absorption" on google scholar gives me a few frequently cited results [1], making me doubt Layne's research. Also in terms of background, Lustig is a professor guest starring on a podcast sponsored by various companies (including one that sells supplements [2] [3]) versus Layne who runs a company that sells workout guides / supplements [4]. Not to say there's any obvious conflict of interest here, but I think the professor actively involved in research has more credibility. --- > [the 30kcal] has to come out somewhere else, or it’s going to stay in there. That's a good point. I'd love to know what the practical difference between my gut bacteria consuming energy vs rest-of-me consuming energy is too. But yeah Lustig saying sugar was as addictive as heroin also raised a red flag for me. Maybe true in a technical sense but definitely shows he's trying to push a point (anti-corpo maybe?). [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fiber+slows+fructose+absorption https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fiber+slows+fructose+ab... [2] https://www.hubermanlab.com/episode/dr-robert-lustig-how-sugar-processed-foods-impact-your-health https://www.hubermanlab.com/episode/dr-robert-lustig-how-sug... -- see sponsors in timestamps [3] https://drinkag1.com/ https://drinkag1.com/ [4] https://biolayne.com/ https://biolayne.com/