Calories in calories out

ninerbuff

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!

Supporting anecdotes? That's not "support" that's called pacification.

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

Rawfoodsho

I do not think the OP is stupid, or doesn't really believe in science.

I think the OP has a subconscious emotional (technically irrational) reason to not want to believe that calories in/out really is rock solid science. There could be a number of issues at the root of this but I do not have the time or desire to dive that deeply into their psyche.

Once a decision/conclusion is made based on an emotional reason (especially if done subconsciously) it can be extremely difficult to change it in some cases, even in the face of a logically/scientifically irrefutable mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Its not science. There are tons of variables, everyone is different and its not 100% accurate.

This is a genuine question, OP (100% and not sarcastic). Why did you post this? This is a mainly calorie counting website and thus it is understood (or should be) that paying attention to calories in, calories out is how many of the people here choose to lose weight. It has worked for many of these people, in fact. People here are not going to support a scientifically unsubstantiated claim, so I'm curious as to why you brought this up here.

Here lets make it easy for you guys


http://www.thegreatfitnessexperiment.com/2011/07/harvard-says-calories-incalories-out-model-is-flawed-so-what-do-we-use-instead.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?_r=0

http://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/

http://danceswithfat.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/the-calories-incalories-out-myth/

http://www.cbn.com/health/nutrition/drlen_countcalories.aspx

Now let's try actual studies and not opinion/news stories.

lol try again. The second one is a study they did on 120k people for years. Also much scientific fact is pointed out here: in much detail and scientific information. If you can understand it


http://www.gnolls.org/3374/

guroprincess

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

SideSteel

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.

You dont have to accept what I have already seen and know as fact. That is not the point of this topic. This does happen, calories in calories out is not 100% a 300 pound person can easily not eat to much, NOT hide what they are eating and still not lose weight. Just like a girl can be 110 pounds and eat tons of crap and not gain. I have plenty of thin friends who dont work out, eat tons of crap and dont gain. Actually, my step sister drinks like 2200 calories plus of beer a day, sits on her computer playing slots and cards, never leaves her house and weighs 125 pounds at like 5'10. She cant even gain weight if she tried, so yes this does happen everyday all around us.

The real problem, is how when someone isn't seeing results people on these bored automatically tell them its all THEIR fault, they MUST being doing something wrong. They dont consider they could be doing everything right and that it just doesn't work for some people? Like it has been stated if your metabolism is damaged you might have to eat a lower deficit then suggested through these websites.

You're thinking of it backwards in my opinion. Rather than thinking that there are people who are in an energy deficit and not losing weight, I would think of it that they are not losing weight and therefore they are not in an energy deficit. Change in body mass (excluding fluids) indicates overall state of energy balance.

Additionally, for perspective sake, I use a food scale and I measure and track things to the best of my ability. Even with these habits in play, there's a fair amount of error in estimation of both energy intake and energy output. The fact that you are claiming to know what someone else consumes for energy intake, unless you're weighing and measuring their food (which you aren't), and logging what they eat (which you aren't) then you're really not determining what their intake is.

Additionally, I think there's merit in the idea that people have varying levels of non exercise activity thermogenesis. You're not strapping an HRM to the "friends you observe" or trying to tightly monitor their energy output, so you can't make much of any conclusions about that either.

In short, while your observations about people being generally junk food eaters or generally "lazy" might be valid, they don't say ANYTHING about a thermodynamic model because you're not doing ANYTHING to account for those variables. You are watching and formulating an opinion that the calorie model must not work because of what you are seeing.

Yet to my knowledge, every time we stick someone in a metabolic ward and tightly control the variables, energy deficits cause a decrease in body mass. Because science.

Unless you go to a doctor anyways to get your real levels checked none of these tdee, bmr crap on these sites is even 100% correct

Even if you DO go to a doctor there are still all kinds of sources of error. They are all estimations. But this doesn't invalidate the thermodynamic model. It makes it more complicated and less linear, but it doesn't make it invalid.

Its not invalid it just doesn't work 100% for everyone

I have yet to see a documented example of it not working when variables are tightly controlled. I'm genuinely interested in cases if anyone has them.

Since the variables are not often tightly controlled when it comes to different people it doesn't really matter if it works on the specific controlled group.

It would matter if you could find examples in a tightly controlled setting where it doesn't work because it would validate your claims.

Well a controlled setting with healthy people isn't reality.

If you can find an example of an obese person on an exceptionally low calorie diet who is not losing weight for extended periods of time this would lend credibility to your position and yet this wouldn't be a "healthy person" as you state above.

You can find anything on the internet saying anything is good.

People tend to default to this reply quite a bit. Can you find me an example of high doses of rat poison being beneficial for your kidneys? Can you find me an example of someone who can grow wings and fly while eating coconuts? I'm being ridiculous here to prove a point. You most certainly cannot find anything on the internet saying anything is good and you most CERTAINLY cannot find peer reviewed research (something we would consider credible at least insofar as it would be a good starting point to make some assertions about things) supporting anything you want.

Articles are constantly contradicting each other, so where are your studies?

It is not on me to find studies to deny your claim, it is on you to find studies to support yours. So far you have anecdote.

True because I gave real life accounts of the skinny or big people I know and have spent extensive time with who this doesn't work for.

Which, by definition, is anecdote.

http://www.gnolls.org/3374/

This discusses issues with the calorie model but it's not anything resembling a study presenting an example where your anecdote can be seen under settings in which energy intake/expenditure is tightly monitored.

EDIT: Haven't checked the links you listed previously, will do that too.

RunBrew

Let's indulge in a metaphor:

I have a truck (my body). That truck has a large fuel tank in the bed (my fat cells), in addition to the fuel tank under the cab (my stomach)
I start pouring in fuel(food) into the little tank at a high flowrate (calorie dense,large portions).
Pretty soon the little tank is full and I keep pouring in fuel. It starts fill in the big tank in the bed. I have a surplus of fuel (calories)
As I drive (do stuff/exercise), I'm burning fuel(calories).
I stop very soon and buy more fuel. I add more to the little tank (stomach), and it spills over into the big tank (fat cells) because I didn't stop when the little tank was full.
After a while, the big tank is getting pretty full. (overweight- long period of surplus fuel)
I now have two choices to drain that large fuel tank:
Put in less fuel
Drive more/faster

This is thermodynamics in action.
You can't magically vaoprize fuel from the big tank without sending it into the engine (metabolism)
You can't burn fuel faster without driving faster/more.
You seem to be arguing that this is possible.

What you are missing from the metaphor is:
Others are 1) adding less fuel than you think or 2) driving more/faster than you think.
You also seem to be willfully overlooking the fact that everyone's engine (metabolism) idles at a different speed.
You have no idea what it really is idling at, but you can guess based on what other people have figured for their engines.
The only way to get an estimate for you is to add fuel(food) slowly and watch the level in the big fuel tank rise or fall in response to how fast you add it, and how much/fast you drive.

These are the only explanations. You cannot refute laws of the universe.

Achrya

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

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.

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?

Well, you can since a whole turkey will probably induce vomiting. Weight loss 101 right there.

People who vomit after eating a whole turkey are just not hardcore enough.

Achrya

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

MyChocolateDiet

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.

silenceinspace

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

Rawfoodsho

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.

Rawfoodsho

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.

Rawfoodsho

Let's indulge in a metaphor:

I have a truck (my body). That truck has a large fuel tank in the bed (my fat cells), in addition to the fuel tank under the cab (my stomach)
I start pouring in fuel(food) into the little tank at a high flowrate (calorie dense,large portions).
Pretty soon the little tank is full and I keep pouring in fuel. It starts fill in the big tank in the bed. I have a surplus of fuel (calories)
As I drive (do stuff/exercise), I'm burning fuel(calories).
I stop very soon and buy more fuel. I add more to the little tank (stomach), and it spills over into the big tank (fat cells) because I didn't stop when the little tank was full.
After a while, the big tank is getting pretty full. (overweight- long period of surplus fuel)
I now have two choices to drain that large fuel tank:
Put in less fuel
Drive more/faster

This is thermodynamics in action.
You can't magically vaoprize fuel from the big tank without sending it into the engine (metabolism)
You can't burn fuel faster without driving faster/more.
You seem to be arguing that this is possible.

What you are missing from the metaphor is:
Others are 1) adding less fuel than you think or 2) driving more/faster than you think.
You also seem to be willfully overlooking the fact that everyone's engine (metabolism) idles at a different speed.
You have no idea what it really is idling at, but you can guess based on what other people have figured for their engines.
The only way to get an estimate for you is to add fuel(food) slowly and watch the level in the big fuel tank rise or fall in response to how fast you add it, and how much/fast you drive.

These are the only explanations. You cannot refute laws of the universe.

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”

YesIAm17

I do not think the OP is stupid, or doesn't really believe in science.

I think the OP has a subconscious emotional (technically irrational) reason to not want to believe that calories in/out really is rock solid science. There could be a number of issues at the root of this but I do not have the time or desire to dive that deeply into their psyche.

Once a decision/conclusion is made based on an emotional reason (especially if done subconsciously) it can be extremely difficult to change it in some cases, even in the face of a logically/scientifically irrefutable mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Its not science. There are tons of variables, everyone is different and its not 100% accurate.

This is a genuine question, OP (100% and not sarcastic). Why did you post this? This is a mainly calorie counting website and thus it is understood (or should be) that paying attention to calories in, calories out is how many of the people here choose to lose weight. It has worked for many of these people, in fact. People here are not going to support a scientifically unsubstantiated claim, so I'm curious as to why you brought this up here.

Here lets make it easy for you guys


http://www.thegreatfitnessexperiment.com/2011/07/harvard-says-calories-incalories-out-model-is-flawed-so-what-do-we-use-instead.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?_r=0

http://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/

http://danceswithfat.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/the-calories-incalories-out-myth/

http://www.cbn.com/health/nutrition/drlen_countcalories.aspx

Have gone through these links. Not a single one of them provides any evidence whatsoever that would in anyway suggest that a calorie deficit would not result in weight loss or that a calorie surplus would not result in weight gain.

The only arguments presented by these links are whether certain foods are healthier, or might increase/decrease metabolism, and other similar lines of thought.

Most of these links in essence agree with the calories in/out model... they pretend to sort of disagree at first so as to capture the readers attention but then don't deliver on that. It's a gimmick commonly used and taught in advertising and media production.

MuseofSong

I have an endocrine disorder, and I still lose weight by having a weekly deficit of eating and drinking fewer calories than I burn.

It all comes down to math, which means it IS calories in and calories out.

Anyone who says they're gaining weight, or unable to lose weight, when they take in fewer calories than they burn is doing the math wrong.

Cindyinpg

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

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.

/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.

I lose weight, this wasn't about me. I am not 300 pounds or 120 pounds.

THAT was me. :drinker: And I did NOT say, I eat tons of crap. I said I lost 123lbs eating ice cream everyday, as well as other foods that I enjoy. I also eat plenty of lean protein, fruit and vegetables, weight train, cycle, and kickbox. But I guess that ice cream is going to make me unhealthy and fat. :sad:

SideSteel

This link you posted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?_r=0

Uses this study as it's basis:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC&#t=articleTop

One major issue with this is the use of a survey to establish dietary intake (necessary with that population size/that study design), but in addition you should probably read the study as it shows that increased consumption of energy dense foods showed a direct relationship to increase in weight. Now while I'd not put too much stock in this study to begin for validating or invalidating energy balance, it would still seem to indicate that eating energy dense foods leads to weight gain, and eating a greater portion of lower energy foods (that are also high in satiety) leads to decreased weight gain.

Rawfoodsho

I have an endocrine disorder, and I still lose weight by having a weekly deficit of eating and drinking fewer calories than I burn.

It all comes down to math, which means it IS calories in and calories out.

Anyone who says they're gaining weight, or unable to lose weight, when they take in fewer calories than they burn is doing the math wrong.

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”.

Iron_Feline

This link you posted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?_r=0

Uses this study as it's basis:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC&#t=articleTop

One major issue with this is the use of a survey to establish dietary intake (necessary with that population size/that study design), but in addition you should probably read the study as it shows that increased consumption of energy dense foods showed a direct relationship to increase in weight. Now while I'd not put too much stock in this study to begin for validating or invalidating energy balance, it would still seem to indicate that eating energy dense foods leads to weight gain, and eating a greater portion of lower energy foods (that are also high in satiety) leads to decreased weight gain.

Please - there is no science allowed in this thread :laugh:

Rawfoodsho

I do not think the OP is stupid, or doesn't really believe in science.

I think the OP has a subconscious emotional (technically irrational) reason to not want to believe that calories in/out really is rock solid science. There could be a number of issues at the root of this but I do not have the time or desire to dive that deeply into their psyche.

Once a decision/conclusion is made based on an emotional reason (especially if done subconsciously) it can be extremely difficult to change it in some cases, even in the face of a logically/scientifically irrefutable mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Its not science. There are tons of variables, everyone is different and its not 100% accurate.

This is a genuine question, OP (100% and not sarcastic). Why did you post this? This is a mainly calorie counting website and thus it is understood (or should be) that paying attention to calories in, calories out is how many of the people here choose to lose weight. It has worked for many of these people, in fact. People here are not going to support a scientifically unsubstantiated claim, so I'm curious as to why you brought this up here.

Here lets make it easy for you guys


http://www.thegreatfitnessexperiment.com/2011/07/harvard-says-calories-incalories-out-model-is-flawed-so-what-do-we-use-instead.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?_r=0

http://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/

http://danceswithfat.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/the-calories-incalories-out-myth/

http://www.cbn.com/health/nutrition/drlen_countcalories.aspx

Have gone through these links. Not a single one of them provides any evidence whatsoever that would in anyway suggest that a calorie deficit would not result in weight loss or that a calorie surplus would not result in weight gain.

The only arguments presented by these links are whether certain foods are healthier, or might increase/decrease metabolism, and other similar lines of thought.

Most of these links in essence agree with the calories in/out model... they pretend to sort of disagree at first so as to capture the readers attention but then don't deliver on that. It's a gimmick commonly used and taught in advertising and media production.

Its right here simply

http://www.gnolls.org/3374/

Rawfoodsho

This link you posted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?_r=0

Uses this study as it's basis:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC&#t=articleTop

One major issue with this is the use of a survey to establish dietary intake (necessary with that population size/that study design), but in addition you should probably read the study as it shows that increased consumption of energy dense foods showed a direct relationship to increase in weight. Now while I'd not put too much stock in this study to begin for validating or invalidating energy balance, it would still seem to indicate that eating energy dense foods leads to weight gain, and eating a greater portion of lower energy foods (that are also high in satiety) leads to decreased weight gain.

Please - there is no science allowed in this thread :laugh:

Accept what you "think" is science. Is flawed