9 ms·

I am not a dietician by any stretch, but this 'net calorie' business seems really unlikely to me. Cars have different gas mileage; i doubt I am shitting out 0

by eof 14y ago

I am not a dietician by any stretch, but this 'net calorie' business seems really unlikely to me. Cars have different gas mileage; i doubt I am shitting out 0 calories, etc. Ketosis is a real thing and people do shed a shit ton of weight getting into that state; all of these things basically invalidate 'long term deficit' as the sole coeffecient into what is likely an incredibly complex equation only barely understood.

jacques_chester 14y ago
Read my longer blog post. I go over the whole matter. The tl;dr is that ketosis is not exempt from the laws of physics.
- eof 14y ago
  No offence but your post is overly simplistic and not in anyway convincing that your actual thesis is a complete picture of what is going on. It is undeniably true that calories in vs calories out is a driving factor, it is not however the only factor. Your article shows how you think about diet/weight, and is not really reflective of any strong scientific understanding, and, in my opinion, needlessly disregards "… insulin! Starvation mode! Carbs! Zones! That study I saw written up in the New York Times!", when there is actually something here, or atleast potentially here that is also a driving force in weight. edited for politeness/accuracy
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    Care to elaborate? I can only suspect that, as usual, this will turn out to be a dispute over the boundaries of the system we're discussing (single-human-body-mass-system vs economy-society-and-single-human-body-system). If you genuinely believe that net calorie balance isn't the sole determinant of long term average mass, then I'd like to know what else it could be. Saying "oh it must be more complex than that!" isn't such an explanation.
    - eof 14y ago
      For example, it is possible I am eating 2000 calories a day, burning 1900 and shitting out 100. EDIT--because I am too lazy to wait to post to daughter comment-- It is possible, for example, that if I eat a FOO, which has 100 calories, it will change effeciencies of systems in my body in tangental ways so as to cause it to burn 5% more calories than it would have if I didn't eat a FOO. I could also eat a candyBAR which has 100 calories, that causes it to burn 5% less calories than if I didn't eat a candyBAR. Thus, conclusively proving that "calories in" and ignoring the actual foods eaten is absurd.
      - TeMPOraL 14y ago
        You should then not gain weight. Those 100kcal also count as calories out for the simplified model[0] used for feedback weight control. [0] - http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/e4/rubberbag.html http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/e4/rubberbag.html
      - jacques_chester 14y ago
        Hence net calorie balance. All the words are meaningful in that description. For the same reason, I say "long term average mass". Weight is sufficiently noisy that I can be pinned to the mat on a silly debate-club technicality while the larger issue remains unaddressed. When I say "net calorie balance" I'm not talking about subtracting the calories on the elliptical machine from the calories on the chocolate bar. That's an approximation, at best, because of the stunning complexities of the underlying system. Actual net calorie balance is unobservable. What you can observe is the outcome of net calorie balance, which is long term average body mass: aka whether you're getting fat or not. You don't need to actually observe all the complexity of the underlying system. You need only observe the inputs and outputs. Are you getting fatter? Eat less, or change what you eat. Want to get bigger? Eat more, or change what you eat. There's no need to build a blinkenlights dashboard of every variable of every bodily system. You just look at the scale or the mirror and change your behaviour. [edited for larger reply to your edit]
        learc83 14y ago
- mipapage 14y ago
  While admittedly I haven't taken the time to read your entire blog post, I'm throwing this link out there for your perusal: http://thatpaleoguy.com/2012/12/19/calorie-rants-and-ketosis-part-1/ http://thatpaleoguy.com/2012/12/19/calorie-rants-and-ketosis... Quite simply, you have to consider how a calorie takes the path to becoming a calorie in our system, imo.
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    My overarching theme in my blog post is that the underlying complexity (which absolutely exists) is utterly optional for actually controlling weight. You just don't need to know it or understand it. Eat less --> weigh less and Eat more --> weigh more Are sufficiently good that you can form a working control system with them. No other variables need be observed or cared about.
    - eof 14y ago
      Your logic is flawed. The only limiting factor is calories in. It is impossible to gain weight for calories you have not eaten. None of your analysis in anyway shows, or even hints at the 'fact' that Eating more will necessarily make you weigh more. It is totally possible that someone can eat 3k calories a day, but no carbs, and this could have all types of effects; like a slight increase in body temperature due to a different rate of caloric burning, or maybe not everything is getting digested and he is shitting out 1.5k calories a day for some dietary reason you don't understand. In the same way you cannot say "well logically, I put 5 gallons of gas in a car and went 25 miles, therefore there must be 1 gallon of gas left" without knowing specifics about an engine; you cannot do the same with humans, which you essentially are. Further, our bodies/engines are dynamic; and some of our internal systems are more or less effecient depending on a number of factors that you don't understand (for example, it is possible that eating certain types of calories have chemicals/enzymes related to them that cause other systems in the body to change effeciency). You have one side right: If you want to lose weight you can be absolutely sure that by cutting down calories, below a certain threshold, you will lose weight. But, then you go too far and say this is the only thing at play. In fact, you don't have any logical reason to make the second statement; it admittedly seems to make sense at face value, but ketosis is absolutely real, and people are shedding weight and still eating a ton of calories, regardless of whatever graphs/analysis you are making.

by eof 14y ago

jacques_chester 14y ago

Read my longer blog post. I go over the whole matter. The tl;dr is that ketosis is not exempt from the laws of physics.

eof 14y ago
No offence but your post is overly simplistic and not in anyway convincing that your actual thesis is a complete picture of what is going on. It is undeniably true that calories in vs calories out is a driving factor, it is not however the only factor. Your article shows how you think about diet/weight, and is not really reflective of any strong scientific understanding, and, in my opinion, needlessly disregards "… insulin! Starvation mode! Carbs! Zones! That study I saw written up in the New York Times!", when there is actually something here, or atleast potentially here that is also a driving force in weight. edited for politeness/accuracy
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  Care to elaborate? I can only suspect that, as usual, this will turn out to be a dispute over the boundaries of the system we're discussing (single-human-body-mass-system vs economy-society-and-single-human-body-system). If you genuinely believe that net calorie balance isn't the sole determinant of long term average mass, then I'd like to know what else it could be. Saying "oh it must be more complex than that!" isn't such an explanation.
  - eof 14y ago
    For example, it is possible I am eating 2000 calories a day, burning 1900 and shitting out 100. EDIT--because I am too lazy to wait to post to daughter comment-- It is possible, for example, that if I eat a FOO, which has 100 calories, it will change effeciencies of systems in my body in tangental ways so as to cause it to burn 5% more calories than it would have if I didn't eat a FOO. I could also eat a candyBAR which has 100 calories, that causes it to burn 5% less calories than if I didn't eat a candyBAR. Thus, conclusively proving that "calories in" and ignoring the actual foods eaten is absurd.
    - TeMPOraL 14y ago
      You should then not gain weight. Those 100kcal also count as calories out for the simplified model[0] used for feedback weight control. [0] - http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/e4/rubberbag.html http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/e4/rubberbag.html
    - jacques_chester 14y ago
      Hence net calorie balance. All the words are meaningful in that description. For the same reason, I say "long term average mass". Weight is sufficiently noisy that I can be pinned to the mat on a silly debate-club technicality while the larger issue remains unaddressed. When I say "net calorie balance" I'm not talking about subtracting the calories on the elliptical machine from the calories on the chocolate bar. That's an approximation, at best, because of the stunning complexities of the underlying system. Actual net calorie balance is unobservable. What you can observe is the outcome of net calorie balance, which is long term average body mass: aka whether you're getting fat or not. You don't need to actually observe all the complexity of the underlying system. You need only observe the inputs and outputs. Are you getting fatter? Eat less, or change what you eat. Want to get bigger? Eat more, or change what you eat. There's no need to build a blinkenlights dashboard of every variable of every bodily system. You just look at the scale or the mirror and change your behaviour. [edited for larger reply to your edit]
      - learc83 14y ago
mipapage 14y ago
While admittedly I haven't taken the time to read your entire blog post, I'm throwing this link out there for your perusal: http://thatpaleoguy.com/2012/12/19/calorie-rants-and-ketosis-part-1/ http://thatpaleoguy.com/2012/12/19/calorie-rants-and-ketosis... Quite simply, you have to consider how a calorie takes the path to becoming a calorie in our system, imo.
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  My overarching theme in my blog post is that the underlying complexity (which absolutely exists) is utterly optional for actually controlling weight. You just don't need to know it or understand it. Eat less --> weigh less and Eat more --> weigh more Are sufficiently good that you can form a working control system with them. No other variables need be observed or cared about.
  - eof 14y ago
    Your logic is flawed. The only limiting factor is calories in. It is impossible to gain weight for calories you have not eaten. None of your analysis in anyway shows, or even hints at the 'fact' that Eating more will necessarily make you weigh more. It is totally possible that someone can eat 3k calories a day, but no carbs, and this could have all types of effects; like a slight increase in body temperature due to a different rate of caloric burning, or maybe not everything is getting digested and he is shitting out 1.5k calories a day for some dietary reason you don't understand. In the same way you cannot say "well logically, I put 5 gallons of gas in a car and went 25 miles, therefore there must be 1 gallon of gas left" without knowing specifics about an engine; you cannot do the same with humans, which you essentially are. Further, our bodies/engines are dynamic; and some of our internal systems are more or less effecient depending on a number of factors that you don't understand (for example, it is possible that eating certain types of calories have chemicals/enzymes related to them that cause other systems in the body to change effeciency). You have one side right: If you want to lose weight you can be absolutely sure that by cutting down calories, below a certain threshold, you will lose weight. But, then you go too far and say this is the only thing at play. In fact, you don't have any logical reason to make the second statement; it admittedly seems to make sense at face value, but ketosis is absolutely real, and people are shedding weight and still eating a ton of calories, regardless of whatever graphs/analysis you are making.