5 ms·

What if the sky were peuce? If you expend more energy than you take in via calories, you lose weight, period. With a rational approach to food intake, that 10

What if the sky were peuce? If you expend more energy than you take in via calories, you lose weight, period. With a rational approach to food intake, that 10-15% the researchers claim is like cutting the crust off of a sandwich. It's nothing. You don't see a lot of obese animals in nature, regardless of any genetic metabolic mutation, because they have to actually work to acquire their food. It's funny that when I see people stick to traditional diets, they gain weight at a vastly slower rate than people who eat fast food and drink sodas. They may still end up being technically obese, but it will be at age 70 instead of age 35.

vowelless 12y ago
Disclaimer: I am not a doctor, just someone who is curious about how the body works on a high level. To better understand cause and effect, a question that Peter Attia asks is that, do children eat more and grow (gaining weight as they age), or is it because they are growing that they eat more? Nutrition turns out to be a lot more complex than just calories in and calories out. It looks like that is a manifestation of something deeper, like growth hormones triggering a different type of metabolism. He asks the same question about obesity. Do people get fat (elevated number of triglycerides stored in the fat cells) because they are eating more than expending energy? Or, are they eating more because of hormonal imbalances? He (along with many other doctors) suggest that it is actually the effect of insulin that causes the body to be conservative with the expending of energy. Insulin resistance also leads to diabetes, which is strongly correlated with obesity. So the hypothesis is that it is out of control insulin (due to sugar intake, HFCS, simple carbs, prevelant in american diet) that is the cause for the obesity epidemic, and not just less exercise (although exercise can be used to eliminate the excess glucose in the body which triggers the insulin response). Here are some of his talks: TED: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMhLBPPtlrY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMhLBPPtlrY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAWdHYSrh7M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAWdHYSrh7M And his blog http://eatingacademy.com/ http://eatingacademy.com/
AndrewKemendo 12y ago
If you expend more energy than you take in via calories, you lose weight, period. I think your phrasing is important here, because there is a lot of debate about "Calories in, calories out" especially considering studies showing that not all calories have equal effects on the body. Generally though the first law holds, the distinctions are about what timeline...
- jacques_chester 12y ago
  > not all calories have equal effects on the body Do you have a citation? Bearing in mind that food calorie labels are already adjusted for the average thermic effect of different macronutrients.
nitrogen 12y ago
Calories in and calories out are not simple knobs that anybody can tweak at will; they are complex functions that, if we could define them, would depend on genetics, temperature, types of food eaten, energy expended recently, etc. It's meaningless to say "CalIn==CalOut" when each is defined in terms of the other.
- jacques_chester 12y ago
  Steam engines are surprisingly complex too, but you can control them by ignoring everything except shaft rotation and a steam inlet valve. What kind of coal? Doesn't matter. What's the hill gradient? Doesn't matter. Is the driver tired? Doesn't matter. Boiler size? Number of driving wheels? Who the engineers were dreaming of marrying when they designed the pistons? Track width? Hardness of the water? Doesn't matter. You can control the whole system by observing one output and using one input.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    What method do you suggest will measure calories in and calories out exactly? If these cannot be observed exactly, what's the point in being so insistent about them?
    - jacques_chester 12y ago
      There's been a misunderstanding. I agree with you that direct caloric balance is unobservable on an individual basis, it can only be approximately estimated. I'm saying that weight and appearance are observable, and that diet is adjustable. Want to gain weight? Change your diet a bit, observe the results over the following weeks. Repeat until satisfied. Want to lose weight? Change your diet a bit, observe the results over the follow weeks. Repeat until satisfied. Some people do these with old-fashioned calorie counting. Some with specialised diets. Some but dropping sweet drinks. But unless you first internalise the locus of control, you won't get anywhere.
    - revelation 12y ago
      My car can't even observe speed exactly, it's off by a few km/h. It doesn't matter because the cops measuring speed expect the error and subtract the margin for me. For "eating less to lose weight" you're looking at megajoules/week change. Theres plenty of room for impreciseness here.
Houshalter 12y ago
>If you expend more energy than you take in via calories, you lose weight, period. With a rational approach to food intake, that 10-15% the researchers claim is like cutting the crust off of a sandwich. It's nothing. You don't see a lot of obese animals in nature, regardless of any genetic metabolic mutation, because they have to actually work to acquire their food. In theory yes, but the vast majority of people who try to lose weight through diet fail. And obese people who are forced to stick to a diet have the metabolisms of starving healthy people - their body desperately trying to return to it's previous weight.
- MisterBastahrd 12y ago
  The diet works. Their habits are a different matter. There is no such thing as "body desperately wanting to return to an old weight." Most people who screw up on their diets end up weighing MORE than before. That's because their approach to food is screwed up, not their genetic disposition to store fat.
  - Houshalter 12y ago
    It has nothing to do with habits. Diets almost always fail, and those on them almost always return to their previous weights. Far more than can be explained by "habits". Obese people who go on diets have the metabolisms of starving people. While on a diet they burn 24% fewer calories per square meter than a normal person. In experiments normal people forced to eat huge amounts of calories gain weight. But as soon as the experiment stops they quickly return to the previous weight. During the experiment their metabolisms increase by 50 percent, and they need far more calories to maintain the weight. "The body’s metabolism speeds up or slows down to keep weight within a narrow range. Gain weight and the metabolism can as much as double; lose weight and it can slow to half its original speed." Also it's really easy to test if something is genetic. Just look at identical twins. Twins have the same weights even when raised in entirely different environments. "Weight is more strongly inherited than nearly any other condition, including mental illness, breast cancer or heart disease." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/health/08fat.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/health/08fat.html?pagewant...

vowelless 12y ago

Disclaimer: I am not a doctor, just someone who is curious about how the body works on a high level. To better understand cause and effect, a question that Peter Attia asks is that, do children eat more and grow (gaining weight as they age), or is it because they are growing that they eat more? Nutrition turns out to be a lot more complex than just calories in and calories out. It looks like that is a manifestation of something deeper, like growth hormones triggering a different type of metabolism. He asks the same question about obesity. Do people get fat (elevated number of triglycerides stored in the fat cells) because they are eating more than expending energy? Or, are they eating more because of hormonal imbalances? He (along with many other doctors) suggest that it is actually the effect of insulin that causes the body to be conservative with the expending of energy. Insulin resistance also leads to diabetes, which is strongly correlated with obesity. So the hypothesis is that it is out of control insulin (due to sugar intake, HFCS, simple carbs, prevelant in american diet) that is the cause for the obesity epidemic, and not just less exercise (although exercise can be used to eliminate the excess glucose in the body which triggers the insulin response). Here are some of his talks: TED: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMhLBPPtlrY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMhLBPPtlrY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAWdHYSrh7M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAWdHYSrh7M And his blog http://eatingacademy.com/ http://eatingacademy.com/

AndrewKemendo 12y ago

If you expend more energy than you take in via calories, you lose weight, period. I think your phrasing is important here, because there is a lot of debate about "Calories in, calories out" especially considering studies showing that not all calories have equal effects on the body. Generally though the first law holds, the distinctions are about what timeline...

jacques_chester 12y ago
> not all calories have equal effects on the body Do you have a citation? Bearing in mind that food calorie labels are already adjusted for the average thermic effect of different macronutrients.

nitrogen 12y ago

Calories in and calories out are not simple knobs that anybody can tweak at will; they are complex functions that, if we could define them, would depend on genetics, temperature, types of food eaten, energy expended recently, etc. It's meaningless to say "CalIn==CalOut" when each is defined in terms of the other.

jacques_chester 12y ago
Steam engines are surprisingly complex too, but you can control them by ignoring everything except shaft rotation and a steam inlet valve. What kind of coal? Doesn't matter. What's the hill gradient? Doesn't matter. Is the driver tired? Doesn't matter. Boiler size? Number of driving wheels? Who the engineers were dreaming of marrying when they designed the pistons? Track width? Hardness of the water? Doesn't matter. You can control the whole system by observing one output and using one input.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  What method do you suggest will measure calories in and calories out exactly? If these cannot be observed exactly, what's the point in being so insistent about them?
  - jacques_chester 12y ago
    There's been a misunderstanding. I agree with you that direct caloric balance is unobservable on an individual basis, it can only be approximately estimated. I'm saying that weight and appearance are observable, and that diet is adjustable. Want to gain weight? Change your diet a bit, observe the results over the following weeks. Repeat until satisfied. Want to lose weight? Change your diet a bit, observe the results over the follow weeks. Repeat until satisfied. Some people do these with old-fashioned calorie counting. Some with specialised diets. Some but dropping sweet drinks. But unless you first internalise the locus of control, you won't get anywhere.
  - revelation 12y ago
    My car can't even observe speed exactly, it's off by a few km/h. It doesn't matter because the cops measuring speed expect the error and subtract the margin for me. For "eating less to lose weight" you're looking at megajoules/week change. Theres plenty of room for impreciseness here.

Houshalter 12y ago

>If you expend more energy than you take in via calories, you lose weight, period. With a rational approach to food intake, that 10-15% the researchers claim is like cutting the crust off of a sandwich. It's nothing. You don't see a lot of obese animals in nature, regardless of any genetic metabolic mutation, because they have to actually work to acquire their food. In theory yes, but the vast majority of people who try to lose weight through diet fail. And obese people who are forced to stick to a diet have the metabolisms of starving healthy people - their body desperately trying to return to it's previous weight.

MisterBastahrd 12y ago
The diet works. Their habits are a different matter. There is no such thing as "body desperately wanting to return to an old weight." Most people who screw up on their diets end up weighing MORE than before. That's because their approach to food is screwed up, not their genetic disposition to store fat.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  It has nothing to do with habits. Diets almost always fail, and those on them almost always return to their previous weights. Far more than can be explained by "habits". Obese people who go on diets have the metabolisms of starving people. While on a diet they burn 24% fewer calories per square meter than a normal person. In experiments normal people forced to eat huge amounts of calories gain weight. But as soon as the experiment stops they quickly return to the previous weight. During the experiment their metabolisms increase by 50 percent, and they need far more calories to maintain the weight. "The body’s metabolism speeds up or slows down to keep weight within a narrow range. Gain weight and the metabolism can as much as double; lose weight and it can slow to half its original speed." Also it's really easy to test if something is genetic. Just look at identical twins. Twins have the same weights even when raised in entirely different environments. "Weight is more strongly inherited than nearly any other condition, including mental illness, breast cancer or heart disease." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/health/08fat.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/health/08fat.html?pagewant...