4 ms·

This is very interesting. "Calories in, calories out" has long been an established principle and topic of debate & discussion among those who follow nutrition,

This is very interesting. "Calories in, calories out" has long been an established principle and topic of debate & discussion among those who follow nutrition, and while it largely still applies, this article points out the factors that bend it somewhat. I wonder about the compositional effects of diet on the way ingested calories are used, too: studies have shown that isocaloric high-protein diets result in increased lean/muscle mass and lower fat mass, compared to high-carb ones. It would be nice to have a survey article to read on recent studies in this area, if anyone would be so kind. I liked this factoid in the article: "Back when it was the craze to measure such variety European scientists discovered that Russian intestines are about five feet longer than those of, say, Italians." Useful adaptation there (I wonder if it tends to make Russian guts any bigger?)

InclinedPlane 14y ago
Here's the core problem. At a fundamental level the thermodynamic argument with regard to body weight has to work, of course it does, there's no way to slip past the laws of physics. If you eat little enough and exercise enough you will lose weight, period, full stop. But by the same token, it's a useless fact, utterly. Look at the same argument as applied to finances. If you make more money than you spend you will build up savings until eventually you are rich. The issue is that these are trivial facts. They don't tackle the core difficulties of the problem they are just bland tautologies. Ultimately long-term weight loss is a complex matter of psychology, motivation, habits, and indeed personal temperament and genetic baggage. For some folks it will come naturally and easily, for others it will always be an uphill climb, and for others it will be almost impossible. And the same thing is true with regards to being wealthy. Some folks quickly and intuitively acquire the skills to step into a business, tweak the knobs until its profitable and then start building up their personal finances from those profits until they have a desire to move on to something else where they do the same thing, continuing to get richer and richer over time. Whereas for others it can be much more of a struggle, or maybe even effectively impossible because they don't have the same opportunities.
- aneth4 14y ago
  > Here's the core problem. At a fundamental level the thermodynamic argument with regard to body weight has to work, of course it does, there's no way to slip past the laws of physics. If you eat little enough and exercise enough you will lose weight, period, full stop. This is just not true. Our bodies follow the laws of thermodynamics, but the laws of thermodynamics do not dictate how or whether we process calories. We can poop out fat. If you drink a bottle of olive oil, you will probably not digest it all. If you eat fiber, you won't process those calories. Our bodies are not bunsen burners.
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    But all that means is you will process less than your intake, which does not disprove his point: If you eat little enough and exercise enough you will lose weight, period, full stop.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    Yes, precisely. But I'm talking about the limits. If you ingest fewer calories than you burn you will lose weight, period. That's the argument that people have been making about weight loss for ages. But the difficulty there is that in reality the range of "thermodynamic calories" that a person can ingest relative to the exercise they do while maintaining a healthy weight can vary across a huge margin.
    - diegobc 14y ago
      I recall reading about an experiment where obese mice were injected with insulin regularly after being denied food. The mice starved to death despite still having fat stores. Of course, mice are not humans, but this implies that diets that stimulate a lot of insulin production (or normal amounts in insulin-resistant populations) would cause a person to not lose fat.
      - aneth4 14y ago
        Sounds like a great study consistent with my experience and the prevailing view of the anti-diet.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

Here's the core problem. At a fundamental level the thermodynamic argument with regard to body weight has to work, of course it does, there's no way to slip past the laws of physics. If you eat little enough and exercise enough you will lose weight, period, full stop. But by the same token, it's a useless fact, utterly. Look at the same argument as applied to finances. If you make more money than you spend you will build up savings until eventually you are rich. The issue is that these are trivial facts. They don't tackle the core difficulties of the problem they are just bland tautologies. Ultimately long-term weight loss is a complex matter of psychology, motivation, habits, and indeed personal temperament and genetic baggage. For some folks it will come naturally and easily, for others it will always be an uphill climb, and for others it will be almost impossible. And the same thing is true with regards to being wealthy. Some folks quickly and intuitively acquire the skills to step into a business, tweak the knobs until its profitable and then start building up their personal finances from those profits until they have a desire to move on to something else where they do the same thing, continuing to get richer and richer over time. Whereas for others it can be much more of a struggle, or maybe even effectively impossible because they don't have the same opportunities.

aneth4 14y ago
> Here's the core problem. At a fundamental level the thermodynamic argument with regard to body weight has to work, of course it does, there's no way to slip past the laws of physics. If you eat little enough and exercise enough you will lose weight, period, full stop. This is just not true. Our bodies follow the laws of thermodynamics, but the laws of thermodynamics do not dictate how or whether we process calories. We can poop out fat. If you drink a bottle of olive oil, you will probably not digest it all. If you eat fiber, you won't process those calories. Our bodies are not bunsen burners.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  But all that means is you will process less than your intake, which does not disprove his point: If you eat little enough and exercise enough you will lose weight, period, full stop.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  Yes, precisely. But I'm talking about the limits. If you ingest fewer calories than you burn you will lose weight, period. That's the argument that people have been making about weight loss for ages. But the difficulty there is that in reality the range of "thermodynamic calories" that a person can ingest relative to the exercise they do while maintaining a healthy weight can vary across a huge margin.
  - diegobc 14y ago
    I recall reading about an experiment where obese mice were injected with insulin regularly after being denied food. The mice starved to death despite still having fat stores. Of course, mice are not humans, but this implies that diets that stimulate a lot of insulin production (or normal amounts in insulin-resistant populations) would cause a person to not lose fat.
    - aneth4 14y ago
      Sounds like a great study consistent with my experience and the prevailing view of the anti-diet.