6 ms·

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

by 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
  >You just look at the scale or the mirror and change your behaviour. The question is what do you change. If I wake up one morning and decide I'm going to make a change and reduce my caloric intake. Instead of having my normal 1000 Cal eggs and and bacon, I decide to have a 500 Cal glass of sugar water. By lunchtime I'm starving and I feel week so without thinking about it I consume an extra 600 Cal over what I normally would for lunch. Furthermore, keto fans aren't arguing that ketosis violates the laws of physics. Of course in the end it's energy in vs energy out. But the core belief is that the body doesn't process all food equally. They are arguing in essence that the calorie is an imperfect measure of energy available for extraction by the body. Eating what is labeled as 1000 Cal of food A may cause more weight gain that eating 1000 Cal of food B. They aren't saying that the body magically shunts energy into the ether as long as you don't eat carbs. Consider a completely imaginary hypothetical. What if 1000 Cal of food A was processed 100% efficiently so that no waste left your body. And 1000 Cal of food B was processed such that 50% of it left your body as waste. Additionally consider that different combinations may affect the percentages. So that for whatever reason eating food A with food B, may decrease the efficiency with which food A is processed. I'm not saying that the above scenario is in any way true, but if someone proposes that this is the case you can't say he is denying the laws of physics.
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    > Furthermore, keto fans aren't arguing that ketosis violates the laws of physics. I don't have the exact link to hand; but please take it from me on face value that I have had "ketards" do just that. I realise that most of you are sensible people, but sometimes ... well, I guess every group has its share of people who make the rest look bad. > Eating what is labeled as 1000 Cal of food A may cause more weight gain that eating 1000 Cal of food B. Right, so we're arguing about labels. That's why I always use the term "net calorie balance". I'm not referring to the label on the tin (though that's a usable first-order approximation in many cases), I mean the actual physical-physiological outcome for the day.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by eof 14y ago

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
>You just look at the scale or the mirror and change your behaviour. The question is what do you change. If I wake up one morning and decide I'm going to make a change and reduce my caloric intake. Instead of having my normal 1000 Cal eggs and and bacon, I decide to have a 500 Cal glass of sugar water. By lunchtime I'm starving and I feel week so without thinking about it I consume an extra 600 Cal over what I normally would for lunch. Furthermore, keto fans aren't arguing that ketosis violates the laws of physics. Of course in the end it's energy in vs energy out. But the core belief is that the body doesn't process all food equally. They are arguing in essence that the calorie is an imperfect measure of energy available for extraction by the body. Eating what is labeled as 1000 Cal of food A may cause more weight gain that eating 1000 Cal of food B. They aren't saying that the body magically shunts energy into the ether as long as you don't eat carbs. Consider a completely imaginary hypothetical. What if 1000 Cal of food A was processed 100% efficiently so that no waste left your body. And 1000 Cal of food B was processed such that 50% of it left your body as waste. Additionally consider that different combinations may affect the percentages. So that for whatever reason eating food A with food B, may decrease the efficiency with which food A is processed. I'm not saying that the above scenario is in any way true, but if someone proposes that this is the case you can't say he is denying the laws of physics.
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  > Furthermore, keto fans aren't arguing that ketosis violates the laws of physics. I don't have the exact link to hand; but please take it from me on face value that I have had "ketards" do just that. I realise that most of you are sensible people, but sometimes ... well, I guess every group has its share of people who make the rest look bad. > Eating what is labeled as 1000 Cal of food A may cause more weight gain that eating 1000 Cal of food B. Right, so we're arguing about labels. That's why I always use the term "net calorie balance". I'm not referring to the label on the tin (though that's a usable first-order approximation in many cases), I mean the actual physical-physiological outcome for the day.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]