3 ms·
What gets lost in these discussions is the intricacies of calories in vs. calories out. Bodyweight should always vary based on calories in vs. calories out. Y
by mason55 12y ago
What gets lost in these discussions is the intricacies of calories in vs. calories out.
Bodyweight should always vary based on calories in vs. calories out. You can't create mass from nothing and if you're burning more calories than you take in then you have to lose mass or else your body is a perpetual motion machine. What people ignore is that:
1. Certain things change calories out. In some women (for example those with PCOS) their calories out drops dramatically and continues to vary based on their calories in. Their bodyweight is still obeying the laws of calories in vs. calories out but the calories out drops and so it feels like there must be something else going on, that cals in vs. cals out doesn't work.
2. What people really care about is not bodyweight but bodyfat. So even though everyone obeys calories in vs. calories out you can still change what your body does with those calories by adjusting your macronutrient ratios (nutrient partitioning). Decreasing carbs can change your insulin response and cause your body to lose more fat vs muscle which is what people really want. Also your body uses carbs to create glycogen which is stored as water weight.
3. Different macronutrients affect satiety differently. If you just binge on carbs you'll generally be hungry again very soon. If you eat high fat then you'll be full longer. There are also microoptimizations that occur like shifting leptin levels.
It's the source of a lot of arguments. One camp says keto is magic, the next says it's just a trick to keep your calories low, and both are right. Diets like keto do help you keep your calories low, you can't binge and eat 5000 calories of meat and lose weight, but there are also other benefits.
TL;DR: Shit's complicated
- hysteresisloop 12y agoPersonal anecdotal evidence: I disagree. It's simple. I met a former USMC drill instructor who at 45 was 4% bf and could bench several times his weight. He told me he exercised 5 minutes a week (one for another discussion) and ate at McDonald's every day. I grew up in France eating "organic" and plenty of veggies and so on and I was intrigued by the idea that "what" didn't matter, only "how much". I thought I'd give it a shot, and ate McDonald's for one or more meals a day, keeping the total around 1300 kcal/day, and each meal below 400 kcal. I still remember the look a friend gave me as I ate 1/3 of an avocado bacon thickburger from CJ and chucked the other 2/3 into the bin. I lost 7kg in 8 weeks starting at 35% bf. I also increased the weights on big machines (leg press, bench, weighted pull up) by around 20% during that time. Felt perfectly healthy throughout, and mostly not hungry. I also exercised around 10 minutes once a week, walked around 100m a day to and from work and otherwise spent the time sitting. I might do it again this time with a health checkup before and after to get some hard data. Looking back at the papers, books and other "evidence" I read, I found it very hard to find any that controlled for calorific consumption. I want to see a study that goes, for example, paleo vs McDonald's, at equal kcal/day, hydration and meal timing. I want to see the variance not explained away by simple calories in/out.