4 ms·

The laws of thermodynamics are not limited to the total calories consumed and calories burned during intentional exercise. Many variables matter. We know that

by hcal 12y ago

The laws of thermodynamics are not limited to the total calories consumed and calories burned during intentional exercise. Many variables matter. We know that humans are not capable of converting 100% of food's available energy. What if your body is less capable of breaking down certain types of food right after you wake up? what if consuming a large portion of your daily diet in once overwhelms your body's ability to digest it. Science may have solved those specific questions, but pretending that the complex bag of chemical reactions in the human digestive tract is entirely governed by two simple summation variable seems naive. Please forgive any formatting errors. I'm typing this on a tiny little phone

getsat 12y ago
If you assume (incorrectly, as science has proven) that the human body can metabolize 100% of the energy it consumes, your worst case scenario is your caloric intake. In practice, since you're not receiving 100% of that energy, you're actually better off. Figure out your BMR (basal metabolic rate) and add your estimated calorie expenditure and consume fewer calories than that. The fact that not all those calories are actually used by the body makes it even easier to stay below your daily energy requirements. Thanks for the reply
- hcal 12y ago
  The study is specifically stating that of groups of mice consuming similar diets with the same caloric intake, the group that ate whenever they wanted became obese and unhealthy while the windowed eaters did not. That, I think, is scientific evidence that strict caloric regulation is not a complete solution as implied by you first commment. I think the researchers would agree that the difference between obese and healthy is not the result of a micro optimization. The point I was making is that the equation isn't calories_in + calories_out = weight_loss/gain. It is at least x(calories_in) + y(calories_out) = weight_loss/gain where x and y are complex physical and chemical variables that we haven't completely teased out yet. One less than insignificant part of x seems to be related to the time window of consumption. A small change in x or y would result in significant improvements over the course of a life.
  - getsat 12y ago
    I'm thinking more in the context of modern "weight loss" theory. These articles are just more fuel for fat Americans, Brits, and Aussies who want a scapegoat for their weight and a shortcut to lose it. They will do anything except change their diet and (optionally) exercise. They've made that small change to x or y for years and aren't willing to revert those changes. Thanks for the reply.

by hcal 12y ago

getsat 12y ago

If you assume (incorrectly, as science has proven) that the human body can metabolize 100% of the energy it consumes, your worst case scenario is your caloric intake. In practice, since you're not receiving 100% of that energy, you're actually better off. Figure out your BMR (basal metabolic rate) and add your estimated calorie expenditure and consume fewer calories than that. The fact that not all those calories are actually used by the body makes it even easier to stay below your daily energy requirements. Thanks for the reply

hcal 12y ago
The study is specifically stating that of groups of mice consuming similar diets with the same caloric intake, the group that ate whenever they wanted became obese and unhealthy while the windowed eaters did not. That, I think, is scientific evidence that strict caloric regulation is not a complete solution as implied by you first commment. I think the researchers would agree that the difference between obese and healthy is not the result of a micro optimization. The point I was making is that the equation isn't calories_in + calories_out = weight_loss/gain. It is at least x(calories_in) + y(calories_out) = weight_loss/gain where x and y are complex physical and chemical variables that we haven't completely teased out yet. One less than insignificant part of x seems to be related to the time window of consumption. A small change in x or y would result in significant improvements over the course of a life.
- getsat 12y ago
  I'm thinking more in the context of modern "weight loss" theory. These articles are just more fuel for fat Americans, Brits, and Aussies who want a scapegoat for their weight and a shortcut to lose it. They will do anything except change their diet and (optionally) exercise. They've made that small change to x or y for years and aren't willing to revert those changes. Thanks for the reply.