Energy equation - the best article I've ever read

inertiastrength

anubis609 wrote: »

This is also a very good read regarding the same concept:

http://physiqonomics.com/calories/

And if for some reason you deny Lyle as an authority, I'm linking him anyway:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html/

the physioqonomics one was a great read too... also LOLd a couple times

Sofia_Garcia

Amazing article! So well explained and with so info! I feel like I get it a bit more and will help me in my journey not to make the mistake of being desapointed when is more complicated than just Intake outake of calories!
More articles like these please we all need to be more inform!!!!

eok902

Thank you for posting this, @rybo

arianapolitis

Great read !!

Evemaier11

Great article. Explains how complicated weight loss can be when going towards your goal.

danny27greaves

Good stuff!

LynnJ9

This was very intresting and was so logical. Thanks

ISweat4This

Interesting info, thanks for posting.

laurabadams

Bumping because it's a great article.

Maxxitt

Noel_57 wrote: »

I've never understood the whole "resistant starch" theory - that the calories in starches such as potatoes are harder to absorb if they are chilled. Once they are inside you wouldn't they be reheated to 98.6 and throw that theory out the window?

I have read that the "starch" actually changes form when it has been chilled - http://www.medicaldaily.com/healthy-meal-cooking-and-cooling-pasta-changes-starch-quality-cut-calories-fat-307300

macclone

Great article! Thanks for sharing.

rybo

Giving this a bump, since I reposted it to another discussion where it seemed relevant

EHollander89

Great read!

JoLightensUp

Glad you bumped. I missed it the first time you posted @rybo. Great article - comprehensive and easy to understand.

blambo61

Excellent! I've been slammed for saying some of the same things on these forums.

CICO as most people discuss on these forums is the worst case for calculating a deficit. It assumes you digest and use all calories in and it also assumes that calories out are only due to bmr and energy demands on the body. So if you go by that reasoning and if your accurate with CI the mouth and exercise and bmr estimates, it is a useful tool for losing weight. It isn't the whole equation though as discussed. Not all food is used, some takes more energy to digest (especially if gluconeogenesis is high), and fat can be liberated through thermoneogensis not due to body energy demands. Also hormone effects on hunger do influence how much we eat!

Now the diagram that showed all the feedback should be modified by taking the time derivative of everything so that each term is a rate (CI rate - CO rate) and you can then also look at magnitude and rate limiting of these processes which also has effects (the body can process things to a max level and at a max rate).

Francl27

Good article but hard to believe it's totally unbiased as they just want to promote their nutrition program (has nobody else caught it, seriously?).

Lean59man

The article starts off well and then goes off into dubious methods for further weight loss and a shill for Precision Blah Blah.

Grade B.

GottaBurnEmAll

blambo61 wrote: »

Excellent! I've been slammed for saying some of the same things on these forums.

CICO as most people discuss on these forums is the worst case for calculating a deficit. It assumes you digest and use all calories in and it also assumes that calories out are only due to bmr and energy demands on the body. So if you go by that reasoning and if your accurate with CI the mouth and exercise and bmr estimates, it is a useful tool for losing weight. It isn't the whole equation though as discussed. Not all food is used, some takes more energy to digest (especially if gluconeogenesis is high), and fat can be liberated through thermoneogensis not due to body energy demands. Also hormone effects on hunger do influence how much we eat!

Now the diagram that showed all the feedback should be modified by taking the time derivative of everything so that each term is a rate (CI rate - CO rate) and you can then also look at magnitude and rate limiting of these processes which also has effects (the body can process things to a max level and at a max rate).

For the billionth time, NO IT DOESN'T.

Every knowledgeable person on this board is aware of all the points raised in that article.