Calories in calories out
Replies
-
People who think they know what they are talking about ALWAYS bring up thermodynamics
People who think they know exactly what their friends eat always make excuses for them instead of puzzling out the obvious fact that they eat more than you think they do.
I mentioned also the fact that I have lived with family, been around them all day and seen what they eat. And yes, people can drink beer, eat crap and stay 110 pounds.
You are not omnipotent. Unless you are weighing all their food and then watching them all day as they eat and making sure that they are not eating anything extra (or anything less in the case of the skinny people), then you can't possibly know.
You mentioned the nurse, you honestly want us to believe that you were around her 24/7? She ate enough to maintain her weight, end of story.
STOP MAKING EXCUSES! You do no one, not your family and not yourself, any good by trying to convince the world that they're fat simply because they breath air.
They ate at a surplus, maybe only a slight surplus of 100 calories a day for years, but enough to keep that weight and not lose it. The skinny girls are light because they only ate at maintenance levels.
And in my case that was a LOT because my maintenance levels while skinny had to support 3 hours of jumping on fridays plus 1 hour of cheer each day plus walking to and from school, plus swimming as recreation, plus bike riding and etc. So when people asked if I did aerobics to stay thin while watching me kill a milkshake, famous star with cheese and fries and I said "no" they might have gotten the mistaken impression that I did "nothing" ate "crap" and still stayed thin. When in actuality I had very high activity levels that very few people saw.
Yes maybe people who were never around you didn't know about all your hobbies like cheer? Sorry I know the people I have lived with in the past or were friends with.
You must have been reaaaalllly close to these people and spent an awful lot of time with them to know everything they ate.
I bet they carried you around like
and you shared a bed like
and you showered together and kept a careful log of all the foods she ate and possibly on trips you guys were like
0 -
You should be okay with whole hand pies.
They eat "crap" but they don't eat tons of it. I have lost 123lb in 15 months, eating ice cream everyday, chips, chocolate bars, etc. Look at my diary, it's open. I eat all that "crap" at work and in front of friends and family and some of them are quite puzzled as to why I'm losing weight. I'm eating ar a deficit and those skinny girls, they are at maintenance, Simple.That is the world. I know plenty of skinny girls who eat tons of crap and stay 120 pounds. Is that a hard concept to grasp that, that is indeed possible. lol
Great you eat tons of junk food instead of real natural whole foods, you lost weight still being able to eat pure junk while you sit around at work? Yeah forget learning good healthy eating habits.
I think we are getting to the emotional psychoanalysis part right here. There is an exaggeration Level 5 going on in inferring TONS of junk food from the previous posters list of things she was able to enjoy (possibly in moderation while losing her 15 lbs). This is causing anger to a person who beleives in "whole" foods and is puzzled as to why that simple rule alone is not resulting in weight loss. To clarify "whole foods" diets does not mean you are allowed to eat "whole turkeys" or "whole veggie pizzas", or "whole watermelons" no matter how healthy those ingredients may be.
Wait, I can't eat a whole turkey and still expect to lose weight?
Damn it. There go my Thanksgiving plans.
How about whole pies?0 -
You people are such bullies, getting on the OP for not beliving in science and placing her belifes in anecdotes and things she/he's observed. We're all different and yet here for the same thing, support!
This topic comes up a lot (I haven't even been active in the forums for a long time, and I see at least three threads on this a day). I am really fat (just bein' honest) and I think it is ignorant to say that science is not true. She has substantiated her claims with studies that were not peer-reviewed and not considered scientifically valid. She can believe whatever she wants, but I think people around here (myself included) get annoyed at seeing these threads so often, especially since they always unfold in the same way.
She was being sarcastic
Opps, I'be been busted.
/slinks out
Ahhhh, I'm sorry, guys! I just had the claws of scientific justice out and I slashed them a bit too vigorously. I hope you can forgive me. I'll send you whole turkeys
No worries.
Send those turkeys to
Achrya Isdabest
1 calorie equals, 1 calorie lane
Bumfuq, Hawaii0 -
It is science
Problem: Our Bodies Don’t Use “Calories”
You may already see the problem here: a “calorie” is a unit of energy transfer. We determine the number of “calories” in a food by, quite literally, burning it and measuring how much heat it generates
Unfortunately, our bodies are not steam engines! They do not burn the food we eat in a fire and convert the heat into mechanical work. Thus:
There is no biochemical system in our bodies whose input is a “calorie”.
The fact is that different foods can have vastly different effects on our bodies and go through different metabolic pathways before they’re turned into energy (1).
Just focusing on the calorie content of foods and disregarding the metabolic effects they have is a highly flawed way of thinking.0 -
Calorie 101 and why its not 100%
What Is A “Calorie”, Anyway?
The dietary calorie is defined as “the amount of energy required to increase the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 degree Kelvin.”
Problem: Our Bodies Don’t Use “Calories"
You may already see the problem here: a “calorie” is a unit of energy transfer. We determine the number of “calories” in a food by, quite literally, burning it and measuring how much heat it generates.Unfortunately, our bodies are not steam engines! They do not burn the food we eat in a fire and convert the heat into mechanical work.
Why “Calories In, Calories Out” Is A Radical Oversimplification
The fate of a “calorie” of food depends completely on its specific molecular composition, the composition of the foods accompanying it, and how those molecules interact with our current metabolic and nutritional state.
The fact is that different foods can have vastly different effects on our bodies and go through different metabolic pathways before they’re turned into energy
Just focusing on the calorie content of foods and disregarding the metabolic effects they have is a highly flawed way of thinking.
Still not a study. I'm waiting for the non editorial version of information that created your basic understanding of calories in vs calories out.0 -
People who think they know what they are talking about ALWAYS bring up thermodynamics
People who think they know exactly what their friends eat always make excuses for them instead of puzzling out the obvious fact that they eat more than you think they do.
I mentioned also the fact that I have lived with family, been around them all day and seen what they eat. And yes, people can drink beer, eat crap and stay 110 pounds.
You are not omnipotent. Unless you are weighing all their food and then watching them all day as they eat and making sure that they are not eating anything extra (or anything less in the case of the skinny people), then you can't possibly know.
You mentioned the nurse, you honestly want us to believe that you were around her 24/7? She ate enough to maintain her weight, end of story.
STOP MAKING EXCUSES! You do no one, not your family and not yourself, any good by trying to convince the world that they're fat simply because they breath air.
They ate at a surplus, maybe only a slight surplus of 100 calories a day for years, but enough to keep that weight and not lose it. The skinny girls are light because they only ate at maintenance levels.
And in my case that was a LOT because my maintenance levels while skinny had to support 3 hours of jumping on fridays plus 1 hour of cheer each day plus walking to and from school, plus swimming as recreation, plus bike riding and etc. So when people asked if I did aerobics to stay thin while watching me kill a milkshake, famous star with cheese and fries and I said "no" they might have gotten the mistaken impression that I did "nothing" ate "crap" and still stayed thin. When in actuality I had very high activity levels that very few people saw.
Yes maybe people who were never around you didn't know about all your hobbies like cheer? Sorry I know the people I have lived with in the past or were friends with.
You must have been reaaaalllly close to these people and spent an awful lot of time with them to know everything they ate.
I bet they carried you around like
and you shared a bed like
and you showered together and kept a careful log of all the foods she ate and possibly on trips you guys were like
hmm you people act like you have never lived with family lol..These pictures were pretty lame0 -
To bad your body is not an engine and does not burn a calorie in that way.
The fact is that different foods can have vastly different effects on our bodies and go through different metabolic pathways before they’re turned into energy (1).
Just focusing on the calorie content of foods and disregarding the metabolic effects they have is a highly flawed way of thinking.
Unfortunately, our bodies are not steam engines! They do not burn the food we eat in a fire and convert the heat into mechanical work, thus There is no biochemical system in our bodies whose input is a “calorie”
So you couldn't win the argument of "calories in/calories out" so now you're going to step left and attack what a calorie is? nice.
It doesn't matter what form the energy takes, and via what pathway, a surplus is a surplus. Work is work, mechanical or biological.
You cannot defy physics.0 -
Calorie 101 and why its not 100%
What Is A “Calorie”, Anyway?
The dietary calorie is defined as “the amount of energy required to increase the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 degree Kelvin.”
Problem: Our Bodies Don’t Use “Calories"
You may already see the problem here: a “calorie” is a unit of energy transfer. We determine the number of “calories” in a food by, quite literally, burning it and measuring how much heat it generates.Unfortunately, our bodies are not steam engines! They do not burn the food we eat in a fire and convert the heat into mechanical work.
Why “Calories In, Calories Out” Is A Radical Oversimplification
The fate of a “calorie” of food depends completely on its specific molecular composition, the composition of the foods accompanying it, and how those molecules interact with our current metabolic and nutritional state.
The fact is that different foods can have vastly different effects on our bodies and go through different metabolic pathways before they’re turned into energy
Just focusing on the calorie content of foods and disregarding the metabolic effects they have is a highly flawed way of thinking.
Still not a study. I'm waiting for the non editorial version of information that created your basic understanding of calories in vs calories out.
Google "calories in calories out flawed" and look at the billions of pages. Do the work yourself. I provided you with articles and studies, you can continue to be in denial and call it something else. Its all over the internet, studies, as well as easy to understand science as to why it doesn't work 100%. If you cant understand it, its not my job to help you further.0 -
To bad your body is not an engine and does not burn a calorie in that way.
The fact is that different foods can have vastly different effects on our bodies and go through different metabolic pathways before they’re turned into energy (1).
Just focusing on the calorie content of foods and disregarding the metabolic effects they have is a highly flawed way of thinking.
Unfortunately, our bodies are not steam engines! They do not burn the food we eat in a fire and convert the heat into mechanical work, thus There is no biochemical system in our bodies whose input is a “calorie”
So you couldn't win the argument of "calories in/calories out" so now you're going to step left and attack what a calorie is? nice.
It doesn't matter what form the energy takes, and via what pathway, a surplus is a surplus. Work is work, mechanical or biological.
You cannot defy physics.
Its already been clearly shown why it is flawed and doesn't work. You guys can be in denial. The proof is all there. Easy enough to understand, or maybe not......0 -
Google "calories in calories out flawed" and look at the billions of pages. Do the work yourself. I provided you with articles and studies, you can continue to be in denial and call it something else. Its all over the internet, studies, as well as easy to understand science as to why it doesn't work 100%. If you cant understand it, its not my job to help you further.
You haven't provided one actual scientific study. You gave a bunch of links to editorials. Also, since you're in the middle of a debate and you're trying to prove your point, it IS your job to actually provide evidence of your (outlandish) claims.0 -
Calorie 101 and why its not 100%
What Is A “Calorie”, Anyway?
The dietary calorie is defined as “the amount of energy required to increase the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 degree Kelvin.”
Problem: Our Bodies Don’t Use “Calories"
You may already see the problem here: a “calorie” is a unit of energy transfer. We determine the number of “calories” in a food by, quite literally, burning it and measuring how much heat it generates.Unfortunately, our bodies are not steam engines! They do not burn the food we eat in a fire and convert the heat into mechanical work.
Why “Calories In, Calories Out” Is A Radical Oversimplification
The fate of a “calorie” of food depends completely on its specific molecular composition, the composition of the foods accompanying it, and how those molecules interact with our current metabolic and nutritional state.
The fact is that different foods can have vastly different effects on our bodies and go through different metabolic pathways before they’re turned into energy
Just focusing on the calorie content of foods and disregarding the metabolic effects they have is a highly flawed way of thinking.
Still not a study. I'm waiting for the non editorial version of information that created your basic understanding of calories in vs calories out.
Google "calories in calories out flawed" and look at the billions of pages. Do the work yourself. I provided you with articles and studies, you can continue to be in denial and call it something else. Its all over the internet, studies, as well as easy to understand science as to why it doesn't work 100%. If you cant understand it, its not my job to help you further.
"I can't prove my point and none of my studies are actually studies so now I'm going to claim you lack understanding, claim the burden of proving my claim is on you, and flounce."
/flounce0 -
""Could it be that this doesn't work on everyone?""
No, it could not. This formula applies to every living creature
including us. There are no exceptions. If your metabolism is statistically low, your by definition not "burning" as many calories. But as someone previously pointed out, this is basic physics.
Personally, it's annoying, because I'd love to eat a LOT more. But can't. Dieting sucks, changing my lifestyle to be healthy & exercising is a pain in the *kitten*. But we gotta do it.
As that guy in New York (DeGrassie?) said -- It doesn't matter what you believe, Science is true whether you believe it or not.0 -
Let's make this easy. Keep believing this and pass it on to all your friends to help them with weight loss. You're obviously convinced that it works this way.Yes except
The dietary calorie is defined as “the amount of energy required to increase the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 degree Kelvin. You may already see the problem here: a “calorie” is a unit of energy transfer. We determine the number of “calories” in a food by, quite literally, burning it and measuring how much heat it generates. Unfortunately, our bodies are not steam engines! They do not burn the food we eat in a fire and convert the heat into mechanical work. Thus:
There is no biochemical system in our bodies whose input is a “calorie”.
Us non compliers will keep doing it the way scientifically. Of course somehow we're failures at this.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Problem: Our Bodies Don’t Use “Calories"
You may already see the problem here: a “calorie” is a unit of energy transfer. We determine the number of “calories” in a food by, quite literally, burning it and measuring how much heat it generates.Unfortunately, our bodies are not steam engines! They do not burn the food we eat in a fire and convert the heat into mechanical work.
Is it hard to understand lol0 -
From the comments section... sums it up perfectly...
"thorbreakbeatgod
March 20th, 2013 at 7:05 am
>There is no biochemical system in our bodies whose input is a “calorie”.
There is no system period, in which the primary input is a ‘calorie’ the calorie is a measurement of the energy contained within – the amount of heat something gives off through chemical processes.
You couldn’t even get that right, your ‘science’ isn’t that.
This is basically a long winded and poorly articulated argument for Keto/Paleo diets."0 -
It is science
Problem: Our Bodies Don’t Use “Calories”
You may already see the problem here: a “calorie” is a unit of energy transfer. We determine the number of “calories” in a food by, quite literally, burning it and measuring how much heat it generates
Unfortunately, our bodies are not steam engines! They do not burn the food we eat in a fire and convert the heat into mechanical work. Thus:
There is no biochemical system in our bodies whose input is a “calorie”.
The fact is that different foods can have vastly different effects on our bodies and go through different metabolic pathways before they’re turned into energy (1).
Just focusing on the calorie content of foods and disregarding the metabolic effects they have is a highly flawed way of thinking.
Unfortunately for you, our bodies do, in fact, convert energy into mechanical work.
Your body has a metabolism. This is not just how quickly you burn calories or digest food--rather, your metabolism is the sum total of all the chemical processes in your body at the moment.
Catabolism (literally from the three "to throw down") is the breaking down of things you eat, sugars and fats and proteins, into smaller units that make up these things (for example, protein is catabolized into amino acids). It goes on and on. Then your body anabolizes (or "builds up") these elements into things: AMP, then ADP, then ATP. ATP is the energy used in the body and in the cells. If you lift a finger or, say, copy and paste the same half-assed idiotic post, you are using ATP.
TL;DR Actually, your body is almost exactly like an engine, and you are an idiot.0 -
Google fu isn't actual research. It's searching for answers you want to hear..........Google "calories in calories out flawed" and look at the billions of pages.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
How does this work when we have all known a 300 pound person who eats healthy and works an active job but still cant lose ? Like for example I have a friend who is an overweight nurse, she does zumba, eats salads and has a very active job (always on her feet) yet she is still large and has been since a child. Yet I have another friend whos a stay at home mom, 28 years old, eats nothing but fast food and is like 110 soaking wet. So if we accept the fact that there are super skinny girls who cant eat whatever they want and not gain a pound why cant the reverse be true? Why cant someone eat healthy, have a deficit and NOT lose? If a skinny girl can eat 4000 calories a day of fast food with out the calories in calories out applying why does it always 100% apply to overweight people? The bigger people I know that are 300 pounds dont eat ANYWHERE near 3000 plus calories a day like the internet says it takes for them to maintain that weight....
This is what is referred to as a straw man argument (Aunt Sally for those in the UK). If the basis of your argument is a fallacy to start with, how can any debate after be anything less than drivel.
We do not accept the fact that there are super skinny girls that can eat whatever they want unless whatever they want just happens to be always within their caloric limit for maintaining weight. The 300 lb man and overweight nurse are eating more calories than what needs to be eaten to maintain a healthy weight.
They are eating too much. Trying to prove otherwise (medical conditions excluded) is just creating an excuse of eating at a surplus. Those sorts of excuses only help people give up instead of trying to actually solve the problem of being overweight.
Brilliant! And I actually have never heard the 'Aunt Sally' argument before. 0 -
hmm googles "calories in calories out flawed" is in denial about the first 10 pages of articles and facts stated that clearly explains why this doesn't apply or work 100% of the time.
As it has been pointed out, if you damage your metabolism you may need a different amount of calories, therefore it doesn't work because you could think you need one amount but you could not be losing because of a damaged metabolism. 100% would be if their were ZERO variables, but since there are tons, its not black and white, the body is not a simple machine, people do not burn the same and it doesn't always work this simply.0 -
People who think they know what they are talking about ALWAYS bring up thermodynamics
People who think they know exactly what their friends eat always make excuses for them instead of puzzling out the obvious fact that they eat more than you think they do.
I mentioned also the fact that I have lived with family, been around them all day and seen what they eat. And yes, people can drink beer, eat crap and stay 110 pounds.
You are not omnipotent. Unless you are weighing all their food and then watching them all day as they eat and making sure that they are not eating anything extra (or anything less in the case of the skinny people), then you can't possibly know.
You mentioned the nurse, you honestly want us to believe that you were around her 24/7? She ate enough to maintain her weight, end of story.
STOP MAKING EXCUSES! You do no one, not your family and not yourself, any good by trying to convince the world that they're fat simply because they breath air.
They ate at a surplus, maybe only a slight surplus of 100 calories a day for years, but enough to keep that weight and not lose it. The skinny girls are light because they only ate at maintenance levels.
And in my case that was a LOT because my maintenance levels while skinny had to support 3 hours of jumping on fridays plus 1 hour of cheer each day plus walking to and from school, plus swimming as recreation, plus bike riding and etc. So when people asked if I did aerobics to stay thin while watching me kill a milkshake, famous star with cheese and fries and I said "no" they might have gotten the mistaken impression that I did "nothing" ate "crap" and still stayed thin. When in actuality I had very high activity levels that very few people saw.
Yes maybe people who were never around you didn't know about all your hobbies like cheer? Sorry I know the people I have lived with in the past or were friends with.
You must have been reaaaalllly close to these people and spent an awful lot of time with them to know everything they ate.
I bet they carried you around like
and you shared a bed like
and you showered together and kept a careful log of all the foods she ate and possibly on trips you guys were like
hmm you people act like you have never lived with family lol..These pictures were pretty lame
OOOOOHHHH! Guys, that's it! That's it! This is family, so she feels defensive.
0 -
Google fu isn't actual research. It's searching for answers you want to hear..........Google "calories in calories out flawed" and look at the billions of pages.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
And there is tons of scientific information on why this doesn't work0 -
Problem: Our Bodies Don’t Use “Calories"
You may already see the problem here: a “calorie” is a unit of energy transfer. We determine the number of “calories” in a food by, quite literally, burning it and measuring how much heat it generates.Unfortunately, our bodies are not steam engines! They do not burn the food we eat in a fire and convert the heat into mechanical work.
Is it hard to understand lol
Erm...how is it (do you surmise) that your body manages to stay at approximately 98.6 degrees F? Or how is that your body has the ability to walk about and post (idiotic) statements on the internet? Calories being burned providing heat and mechanical energy.
Taaaa Daaaa!0 -
hmm googles "calories in calories out flawed" is in denial about the first 10 pages of articles and facts stated that clearly explains why this doesn't apply or work 100% of the time.
As it has been pointed out, if you damage your metabolism you may need a different amount of calories, therefore it doesn't work because you could think you need one amount but you could not be losing because of a damaged metabolism. 100% would be if their were ZERO variables, but since there are tons, its not black and white, the body is not a simple machine, people do not burn the same and it doesn't always work this simply.
That is not what 'Doesn't work' means.0 -
hmm googles "calories in calories out flawed" is in denial about the first 10 pages of articles and facts stated that clearly explains why this doesn't apply or work 100% of the time.
As it has been pointed out, if you damage your metabolism you may need a different amount of calories, therefore it doesn't work because you could think you need one amount but you could not be losing because of a damaged metabolism. 100% would be if their were ZERO variables, but since there are tons, its not black and white, the body is not a simple machine, people do not burn the same and it doesn't always work this simply.
Uh. This is still calories in/calories out. If you have a "damaged metabolism" and still eat less than your (lower than usual) TDEE, you're still going to lose weight.0 -
Google fu isn't actual research. It's searching for answers you want to hear..........Google "calories in calories out flawed" and look at the billions of pages.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
And there is tons of scientific information on why this doesn't work
Can you post some of it? You can start here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed0 -
People who think they know what they are talking about ALWAYS bring up thermodynamics
People who think they know exactly what their friends eat always make excuses for them instead of puzzling out the obvious fact that they eat more than you think they do.
I mentioned also the fact that I have lived with family, been around them all day and seen what they eat. And yes, people can drink beer, eat crap and stay 110 pounds.
You are not omnipotent. Unless you are weighing all their food and then watching them all day as they eat and making sure that they are not eating anything extra (or anything less in the case of the skinny people), then you can't possibly know.
You mentioned the nurse, you honestly want us to believe that you were around her 24/7? She ate enough to maintain her weight, end of story.
STOP MAKING EXCUSES! You do no one, not your family and not yourself, any good by trying to convince the world that they're fat simply because they breath air.
They ate at a surplus, maybe only a slight surplus of 100 calories a day for years, but enough to keep that weight and not lose it. The skinny girls are light because they only ate at maintenance levels.
And in my case that was a LOT because my maintenance levels while skinny had to support 3 hours of jumping on fridays plus 1 hour of cheer each day plus walking to and from school, plus swimming as recreation, plus bike riding and etc. So when people asked if I did aerobics to stay thin while watching me kill a milkshake, famous star with cheese and fries and I said "no" they might have gotten the mistaken impression that I did "nothing" ate "crap" and still stayed thin. When in actuality I had very high activity levels that very few people saw.
Yes maybe people who were never around you didn't know about all your hobbies like cheer? Sorry I know the people I have lived with in the past or were friends with.
You must have been reaaaalllly close to these people and spent an awful lot of time with them to know everything they ate.
I bet they carried you around like
and you shared a bed like
and you showered together and kept a careful log of all the foods she ate and possibly on trips you guys were like
y u no put pic of "shower together" :sadface:?0 -
Google fu isn't actual research. It's searching for answers you want to hear..........Google "calories in calories out flawed" and look at the billions of pages.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
And there is tons of scientific information on why this doesn't work
Can you post some of it? You can start here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
tons of things have been posted. Google is your friend. Do the work..I know its hard0 -
There sure are a lot of very successful people on here who say "calories in/calories out" does work. I must just be in denial...0
-
Google fu isn't actual research. It's searching for answers you want to hear..........Google "calories in calories out flawed" and look at the billions of pages.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
And there is tons of scientific information on why this doesn't work
Can you post some of it? You can start here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
tons of things have been posted. Google is your friend. Do the work..I know its hard
You are the one making the claims, not me. The burden of proof is on you, I fear.0 -
Calorie 101 and why its not 100%
What Is A “Calorie”, Anyway?
The dietary calorie is defined as “the amount of energy required to increase the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 degree Kelvin.”
Problem: Our Bodies Don’t Use “Calories"
You may already see the problem here: a “calorie” is a unit of energy transfer. We determine the number of “calories” in a food by, quite literally, burning it and measuring how much heat it generates.Unfortunately, our bodies are not steam engines! They do not burn the food we eat in a fire and convert the heat into mechanical work.
Why “Calories In, Calories Out” Is A Radical Oversimplification
The fate of a “calorie” of food depends completely on its specific molecular composition, the composition of the foods accompanying it, and how those molecules interact with our current metabolic and nutritional state.
The fact is that different foods can have vastly different effects on our bodies and go through different metabolic pathways before they’re turned into energy
Just focusing on the calorie content of foods and disregarding the metabolic effects they have is a highly flawed way of thinking.
Still not a study. I'm waiting for the non editorial version of information that created your basic understanding of calories in vs calories out.
Google "calories in calories out flawed" and look at the billions of pages. Do the work yourself. I provided you with articles and studies, you can continue to be in denial and call it something else. Its all over the internet, studies, as well as easy to understand science as to why it doesn't work 100%. If you cant understand it, its not my job to help you further.
Why would I google that phrase unless I was looking for self selected propaganda?
And don't worry about me. I understand what's going on here. I like to rely on science and you like to rely on anecdotal (and flawed) evidence.
All you need to know in order for you and your family/friends to suddenly become successful weight losers:
1. Accurately and honestly track calorie intake.
2. Accurately and honestly track activity levels.
3. Profit in the form of success.
Do this and you no longer need to vehemently protect your current excuse.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions