5 ms·

Except that energy burned is not by any means a 1:1 correlation with exercised performed. We are inefficient machines, and our efficiency characteristics vary w

Except that energy burned is not by any means a 1:1 correlation with exercised performed. We are inefficient machines, and our efficiency characteristics vary wildly in ways we don't fully understand. Two people consuming the same quantity of energy and exerting the same number of joules on exercise equipment do not see identical or even necessarily related physiological effects. There are many, many factors - other nutrients, genetics, timing, the distribution of work over time (short intense exercise vs. long less intense exercise, etc.) and they all matter. There are skinny people who have never been inside a gym. There are fat people who work harder than you. Obviously you can still influence your outcomes, but "energy out >= energy in" is a gross oversimplification.

bronbron 12y ago
> Except that energy burned is not by any means a 1:1 correlation with exercised performed. We are inefficient machines, and our efficiency characteristics vary wildly in ways we don't fully understand. Your basal metabolic rate is not much different from the guy next to you of similar age and weight, barring some extremely rare circumstance. I don't know what to tell you, other than that. > Two people consuming the same quantity of energy and exerting the same number of joules on exercise equipment do not see identical or even necessarily related physiological effects. There are many, many factors - other nutrients, genetics, timing, the distribution of work over time (short intense exercise vs. long less intense exercise, etc.) and they all matter. Exercise is probably the least important part in proper weight maintenance, because of all the reasons you listed. Most people promoting the 'calories calories calories' mantra will tell you the exact same thing. Your diet, and specifically how much you're consuming (regardless of carbs/fats/salt/etc.) is critical, the rest is secondary. > There are skinny people who have never been inside a gym. There are fat people who work harder than you. Obviously you can still influence your outcomes, but "energy out >= energy in" is a gross oversimplification. Not really. Those skinny people are eating less (in aggregate) than the fat people, again barring some very rare metabolic condition. Guaranteed.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  I was with you until the last sentence. I'm from a whole family of skinny people. We eat like horses, just to maintain our weight. Nobody gets even a little tummy bulge until they're 45 or 50. My middle son is currently 6'3" and 150 lbs and eats constantly, the highest-calorie foods available to him, as much as several other people. Always has. When in high school for an after-school snack we baked one frozen pizza for the family, one for him. This is clearly some genetic thing - I was the same way; my nieces are the same way (one getting married in a size 2, that had to be taken in). Eats ice cream by the quart, as often as she can get it.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Oh and our cholesterol is 125 too. And no heart disease. Folks, denial isn't an argument, so please say something instead of just clicking down. I've just mentioned all this not as a straw-man but because a claim of an absolute (Everybody who is skinny isn't eating much) can be disputed by a single counter-example. That's all.
  - sten 12y ago
    A counter example works only on an absolute statement. He didn't say literally ever skinny person met those criteria, rather: >Not really. Those skinny people are eating less (in aggregate) than the fat people, again barring some very rare metabolic condition. Guaranteed.
- btilly 12y ago
  You made a lot of confident assertions, but provided no evidence backing them up. And they seem to be wrong. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate#Causes_of_individual_differences_in_BMR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate#Causes_of_... to find actual measured differences. The #1 cause of differences in BMR is lean body mass. A body builder will therefore have a higher BMR than a fat guy of the same height and weight. Energy spent on short intense exercises that bulk you up will have a bigger impact on your weight than long less-intense exercise that doesn't. It turns out that we can explain about 3/4 of the difference in BMR through known factors such as these. But 1/4 of the normal variation comes from unknown factors, and that variation can easily leave an individual using 10-15% more or less energy than would be otherwise expected. This is a pretty big difference! Furthermore even if you were right about all of that, you would STILL be wrong! Among the other potential effects of exercise is appetite suppression. So if your goal is to eat less, the easiest route might be 45 minutes per day on a treadmill, and then paying attention to your appetite.
huherto 12y ago
Something that has always bother me is why poo is not part of the equation. Do feces have no calories ?
- wutbrodo 12y ago
  My understanding is that the Calories in each bit of food are intended to be "the amount of energy you absorb" (on average, I guess? in the same way that averages are used for how many you burn when exercising). So a better synonym than "energy" for Calories as used in nutrition might be "usable energy" (excluding the energy content of the food that you poo out).
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  Feces is composed of material your body could not break down into usable nutrients, combined with materials your body is attempting to excrete.
  - kondro 12y ago
    Combined with approximately 50% by mass of bacteria.
- Sophistifunk 12y ago
  Yes. And the efficiency of "food calories - shit calories" varies wildly between individuals and across time for individuals. The number of calories you see in a food database is calculated based on how well a few macronutrients literally burn in a lab setting. All it tells us is a way to compare input values, not usage or output.
autokad 12y ago
while that may be true, for the mast majority of people that over simplification is fine. The high odds are that the fat person running next to me on the tread mill is over weight because they eat too much and do not move enough, not because of the 10 calories per hour I may burn in that work out due to what ever factors. if it were a small % of overweight people you might have a point, but the high % of overweight people in US in particular is certainly because of calories consumed >> calories burned. i think the real tragedy is people looking for magical formulas, or giving up because 'its genetics'. further proof of that is that just about any dieting regiment works, the issue is that most people dont stick to them.
- lesterbuck 12y ago
  No, the GP is correct and "calories consumed >> calories burned" is a gross oversimplification. For example, one extra Oreo cookie a day ends up in several pounds gained over a year. Tiny changes in net calories can have very large effects in equilibrium weight. In addition, it is so easy to say "just eat less", but it is very (very) well documented that some overweight people can eat less and lose weight, but they are looking at being extremely hungry every second for the rest of their lives. Once a weight set point has been established, your body can scream at you forever until you regain that weight setting. So easy for "normal" weight people to say "Just eat less".
- aytekin 12y ago
  Most of the population is carb intolerant. Unable to process sugar, their kidney turns it into fat and makes them feel starved at the same time. When they try to follow a balanced diet with lots of carbs, they get fatter and fatter. They try to consume less calories and they starve while creating new fat stores at the same time. For these people calorie calculation is the wrong thing. They should stop sugar consumption, restrict carbs to a minimum and without a diet they will slowly lose the weight.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > They should stop sugar consumption, restrict carbs to a minimum and without a diet they will slowly lose the weight. Controlling what you eat is the definition of implementing a diet, so doing that is not "without a diet".

bronbron 12y ago

> Except that energy burned is not by any means a 1:1 correlation with exercised performed. We are inefficient machines, and our efficiency characteristics vary wildly in ways we don't fully understand. Your basal metabolic rate is not much different from the guy next to you of similar age and weight, barring some extremely rare circumstance. I don't know what to tell you, other than that. > Two people consuming the same quantity of energy and exerting the same number of joules on exercise equipment do not see identical or even necessarily related physiological effects. There are many, many factors - other nutrients, genetics, timing, the distribution of work over time (short intense exercise vs. long less intense exercise, etc.) and they all matter. Exercise is probably the least important part in proper weight maintenance, because of all the reasons you listed. Most people promoting the 'calories calories calories' mantra will tell you the exact same thing. Your diet, and specifically how much you're consuming (regardless of carbs/fats/salt/etc.) is critical, the rest is secondary. > There are skinny people who have never been inside a gym. There are fat people who work harder than you. Obviously you can still influence your outcomes, but "energy out >= energy in" is a gross oversimplification. Not really. Those skinny people are eating less (in aggregate) than the fat people, again barring some very rare metabolic condition. Guaranteed.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
I was with you until the last sentence. I'm from a whole family of skinny people. We eat like horses, just to maintain our weight. Nobody gets even a little tummy bulge until they're 45 or 50. My middle son is currently 6'3" and 150 lbs and eats constantly, the highest-calorie foods available to him, as much as several other people. Always has. When in high school for an after-school snack we baked one frozen pizza for the family, one for him. This is clearly some genetic thing - I was the same way; my nieces are the same way (one getting married in a size 2, that had to be taken in). Eats ice cream by the quart, as often as she can get it.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Oh and our cholesterol is 125 too. And no heart disease. Folks, denial isn't an argument, so please say something instead of just clicking down. I've just mentioned all this not as a straw-man but because a claim of an absolute (Everybody who is skinny isn't eating much) can be disputed by a single counter-example. That's all.
- sten 12y ago
  A counter example works only on an absolute statement. He didn't say literally ever skinny person met those criteria, rather: >Not really. Those skinny people are eating less (in aggregate) than the fat people, again barring some very rare metabolic condition. Guaranteed.
btilly 12y ago
You made a lot of confident assertions, but provided no evidence backing them up. And they seem to be wrong. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate#Causes_of_individual_differences_in_BMR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate#Causes_of_... to find actual measured differences. The #1 cause of differences in BMR is lean body mass. A body builder will therefore have a higher BMR than a fat guy of the same height and weight. Energy spent on short intense exercises that bulk you up will have a bigger impact on your weight than long less-intense exercise that doesn't. It turns out that we can explain about 3/4 of the difference in BMR through known factors such as these. But 1/4 of the normal variation comes from unknown factors, and that variation can easily leave an individual using 10-15% more or less energy than would be otherwise expected. This is a pretty big difference! Furthermore even if you were right about all of that, you would STILL be wrong! Among the other potential effects of exercise is appetite suppression. So if your goal is to eat less, the easiest route might be 45 minutes per day on a treadmill, and then paying attention to your appetite.

huherto 12y ago

Something that has always bother me is why poo is not part of the equation. Do feces have no calories ?

wutbrodo 12y ago
My understanding is that the Calories in each bit of food are intended to be "the amount of energy you absorb" (on average, I guess? in the same way that averages are used for how many you burn when exercising). So a better synonym than "energy" for Calories as used in nutrition might be "usable energy" (excluding the energy content of the food that you poo out).
toomuchtodo 12y ago
Feces is composed of material your body could not break down into usable nutrients, combined with materials your body is attempting to excrete.
- kondro 12y ago
  Combined with approximately 50% by mass of bacteria.
Sophistifunk 12y ago
Yes. And the efficiency of "food calories - shit calories" varies wildly between individuals and across time for individuals. The number of calories you see in a food database is calculated based on how well a few macronutrients literally burn in a lab setting. All it tells us is a way to compare input values, not usage or output.

autokad 12y ago

while that may be true, for the mast majority of people that over simplification is fine. The high odds are that the fat person running next to me on the tread mill is over weight because they eat too much and do not move enough, not because of the 10 calories per hour I may burn in that work out due to what ever factors. if it were a small % of overweight people you might have a point, but the high % of overweight people in US in particular is certainly because of calories consumed >> calories burned. i think the real tragedy is people looking for magical formulas, or giving up because 'its genetics'. further proof of that is that just about any dieting regiment works, the issue is that most people dont stick to them.

lesterbuck 12y ago
No, the GP is correct and "calories consumed >> calories burned" is a gross oversimplification. For example, one extra Oreo cookie a day ends up in several pounds gained over a year. Tiny changes in net calories can have very large effects in equilibrium weight. In addition, it is so easy to say "just eat less", but it is very (very) well documented that some overweight people can eat less and lose weight, but they are looking at being extremely hungry every second for the rest of their lives. Once a weight set point has been established, your body can scream at you forever until you regain that weight setting. So easy for "normal" weight people to say "Just eat less".
aytekin 12y ago
Most of the population is carb intolerant. Unable to process sugar, their kidney turns it into fat and makes them feel starved at the same time. When they try to follow a balanced diet with lots of carbs, they get fatter and fatter. They try to consume less calories and they starve while creating new fat stores at the same time. For these people calorie calculation is the wrong thing. They should stop sugar consumption, restrict carbs to a minimum and without a diet they will slowly lose the weight.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > They should stop sugar consumption, restrict carbs to a minimum and without a diet they will slowly lose the weight. Controlling what you eat is the definition of implementing a diet, so doing that is not "without a diet".