3 ms·
> But if your body expended more calories than you absorbed, the net effect is a loss of mass. Yes, I agree with this. This is called Net Metabolisable Energy
by Pooge 2y ago
> But if your body expended more calories than you absorbed, the net effect is a loss of mass.
Yes, I agree with this. This is called Net Metabolisable Energy[1] and is something mentioned in the book.
I think I said it badly, because I still think calories matter. Just that it matters more what kind of food you're eating rather than just reading the food label.
[1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11299073/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11299073/
- ltbarcly3 2y agoYou are incorrect and there is an almost endless amount of evidence that you are incorrect. In one study they fed rats 90% of their calories from HFCS and they had no health consequences so long as the total calories were controlled to be the same as thr non HFCS group. The "type of calorie" theory is generally proposed by popular psuedo science articles that appeal primarily to overweight people who are looking for easy answers that don't require them to do something challenging. Meanwhile people on ozempic lose weight while eating junk. Your body doesn't care where the calories come from, all that matters is that you don't eat too much.
- Pooge 2y ago> The "type of calorie" theory is generally proposed by popular psuedo science articles that appeal primarily to overweight people who are looking for easy answers that don't require them to do something challenging. "Pseudo science" like a guy who got an OBE for his research? That's a first one. By "something challenging", are you referring to physical activity? Physical activity is good and must be done whether or not you need to lose weight. The point is that physical activity alone is not enough.
- dgfitz 2y ago> By "something challenging", are you referring to physical activity? I believe they are referring to self-control about the foods consumed. Were you being willfully obtuse about this, given this entire sub-thread is about calories and you're deflecting to exercise?
- Pooge 2y ago> I believe they are referring to self-control about the foods consumed. Then I don't understand how "overweight people avoiding something challenging" would use the excuse of the "type of calorie". It's a much harder concept to understand that fat, proteins and carbohydrates are absorbed differently. And you would also need to calculate it manually as packages don't take into account the difference of the composition of the food. > Were you being willfully obtuse about this, given this entire sub-thread is about calories and you're deflecting to exercise? Excuse me, but I am not the one who originally mentioned physical activity. In fact, I cited 2 paragraphs of a book I read talking only about calories absorption, and only 1 sentence of my comments was related to physical activity. Is that insufficient for you?
- ltbarcly3 2y agoBy "something challenging" I was, very obviously, referring to restricting calories to create a deficit.
- dgfitz 2y agoYou can die on this hill, you're just wrong. Doesn't bother me, my weight is fantastic.
- Pooge 2y ago> You can die on this hill, you're just wrong I think you replied to the wrong comment because I didn't make any point in the one you responded to. It's whatever, because I'm not alone on this hill and many nutrition experts agree on this. And I've chosen to give them credit and believe them as I'm not an obesity researcher. > Doesn't bother me, my weight is fantastic. No one asked.