Calories in calories out what science says
Replies
-
Trying to use the “Laws of Thermodynamics” to explain human biological functions is pure folly. Scientific laws only apply to laboratory situations where variables are controlled and systems are closed off from all other systems.
The human body is NOT a closed system and our lives DO NOT take place in laboratories. To put it simply, calories are units of heat, not measures of potency.0 -
http://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/
http://blogs.menshealth.com/bellyoff-nutritionist/nutritionists-are-lying-to-you-calories-arent-equal/2012/11/05/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/02/20/172403779/calorie-counts-fatally-flawed-or-our-best-defense-against-pudge
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/calories-thermodynamics-and-weight/
The law wasn't made to apply to people and is flawed.
Uh, did you read your own links? So far I've checked of one and I don't think it says what you think it says (science asked medicine one).
And, the rest, well I can google fu just as many equally crappy sources that say the opposite. In fact, I can find an article from Men's Health that says CICO is what works. I'm sure I could for others as well.0 -
Oh brother... not this thread... again!
Yes it is 100%... No it's not... Yes it is.... Gifs.... /end thread and return to counting calories
^This0 -
http://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/
http://blogs.menshealth.com/bellyoff-nutritionist/nutritionists-are-lying-to-you-calories-arent-equal/2012/11/05/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/02/20/172403779/calorie-counts-fatally-flawed-or-our-best-defense-against-pudge
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/calories-thermodynamics-and-weight/
The law wasn't made to apply to people and is flawed.
- different macros have differing TEF....yes we know
- different foods have a different impact on satiety....yes we know
- carbs can impact insulin resistant people differently, therefore impacting calories out - yes we know
- fats can regulate hormones - yes we know
- different foods have different fiber/micronutrients that can impact well being - yes we know
All of which impact the calories out part of the equation.
I am not sure what those links 'prove'.0 -
Wait a minute. Are you saying that the millions of weight loss successes of people eating at a calorie deficit is theory only and not fact?So lets clear up something.
Theory vs. Fact vs. Theory
Theory in laymen's terms is a hypothesis that you are trying to prove with anecdotal evidence. Most commonly used for things like english papers or M.A. Thesis
Facts things science has proven as true. Like that the earth revolves around the sun, gravity, existence of DNA, and atoms.
Theory in scientific terms. A way to explain FACTS.
Theories in science are ways to explain things science KNOWS to be TRUE.
hahahahahahahahaha lol
Its a theory because it cant be proven...
Take a friggin science course. A scientific theory is not what you, as a layman, think of as a theory.
taken plenty of science courses a theory isn't fact
Are you saying that the 34 pounds I have lost is not from the practice of creating a calorie deficit through food and exercise?
Do tell.
Please explain yourself in a articulate manner so that I (we all) can understand where you are coming from.0 -
Dang. I better get to a lab quick before gravity stops working!Scientific laws only apply to laboratory situations where variables are controlled and systems are closed off from all other systems.0 -
Fine...I'll forget about all of the sciency mumbo jumbo and will instead just look at my own situation:
When I eat fewer calories than a certain number, I lose weight. The further away from this number, the faster the loss.
When I eat the same calories as a certain number, I maintain weight.
When I eat more calories than a certain number, I gain weight. The further away from this number, the faster the gain.
Using years of detailed food and weight records (and math), I can calculate that "certain number": it's 2400 excluding additional exercise.
Why would I disbelieve that there is a strong correlation between calories in, calories out, and weight loss/gain?0 -
0 -
I am. They prove that the OP is utterly and hopelessly clueless.http://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/
http://blogs.menshealth.com/bellyoff-nutritionist/nutritionists-are-lying-to-you-calories-arent-equal/2012/11/05/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/02/20/172403779/calorie-counts-fatally-flawed-or-our-best-defense-against-pudge
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/calories-thermodynamics-and-weight/
The law wasn't made to apply to people and is flawed.
- different macros have differing TEF....yes we know
- different foods have a different impact on satiety....yes we know
- carbs can impact insulin resistant people differently, therefore impacting calories out - yes we know
- fats can regulate hormones - yes we know
- different foods have different fiber/micronutrients that can impact well being - yes we know
All of which impact the calories out part of the equation.
I am not sure what those links 'prove'.0 -
OP, you are really embarrassing yourself with your arrogance and your lack of understanding.
Take some time to read the articles you posted. You would benefit greatly from the knowledge.0 -
So lets clear up something.
Theory vs. Fact vs. Theory
Theory in laymen's terms is a hypothesis that you are trying to prove with anecdotal evidence. Most commonly used for things like english papers or M.A. Thesis
Facts things science has proven as true. Like that the earth revolves around the sun, gravity, existence of DNA, and atoms.
Theory in scientific terms. A way to explain FACTS.
Theories in science are ways to explain things science KNOWS to be TRUE.
hahahahahahahahaha lol
Its a theory because it cant be proven...
Take a friggin science course. A scientific theory is not what you, as a layman, think of as a theory.
taken plenty of science courses a theory isn't fact
true. theory is not fact.
however the LAWS of thermodynamics are not theory.0 -
I eat fast food almost EVERYDAAAAYYYY.
I just fit it in.0 -
Op, run as fast as your little legs take you; you may nood to run far, thus if cals in dont rqual cals out you may nred to eat an entire banquet to get to where you need to be.
The world just ended the theory of the earth in its orbit around the sun is just theory& therfore not 100% so therefore the earth and the sun collide and we die!
The cheek of it, science provides us with with an undestanding of the world, we prefer to keep it like that!!
i must go borrows nasars space boots next someone may suggesr that the force of graviationl pull isnt enough to keep me.upright!0 -
Trying to use the “Laws of Thermodynamics” to explain human biological functions is pure folly. Scientific laws only apply to laboratory situations where variables are controlled and systems are closed off from all other systems.
The human body is NOT a closed system and our lives DO NOT take place in laboratories. To put it simply, calories are units of heat, not measures of potency.
So how do you feel that this conversation is working out for you?
Do you think you're making your point effectively? I think you're doing a piss poor, terrible job, because whatever point you may have is lurking far beneath your attitude and arrogance.
Way to go.0 -
This verbal barrage of superfluous B*****it is nauseating.and just for fun here is the complete abstract from 2004 - without parts omitted for lol's
Nutr Metab (Lond). 2004 Dec 8;1(1):15.
Affiliation
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is commonly held that "a calorie is a calorie", i.e. that diets of equal caloric content will result in identical weight change independent of macronutrient composition, and appeal is frequently made to the laws of thermodynamics. We have previously shown that thermodynamics does not support such a view and that diets of different macronutrient content may be expected to induce different changes in body mass. Low carbohydrate diets in particular have claimed a "metabolic advantage" meaning more weight loss than in isocaloric diets of higher carbohydrate content. In this review, for pedagogic clarity, we reframe the theoretical discussion to directly link thermodynamic inefficiency to weight change. The problem in outline: Is metabolic advantage theoretically possible? If so, what biochemical mechanisms might plausibly explain it? Finally, what experimental evidence exists to determine whether it does or does not occur?
RESULTS: Reduced thermodynamic efficiency will result in increased weight loss. The laws of thermodynamics are silent on the existence of variable thermodynamic efficiency in metabolic processes. Therefore such variability is permitted and can be related to differences in weight lost. The existence of variable efficiency and metabolic advantage is therefore an empiric question rather than a theoretical one, confirmed by many experimental isocaloric studies, pending a properly performed meta-analysis. Mechanisms are as yet unknown, but plausible mechanisms at the metabolic level are proposed.
CONCLUSIONS: Variable thermodynamic efficiency due to dietary manipulation is permitted by physical laws, is supported by much experimental data, and may be reasonably explained by plausible mechanisms.0 -
0 -
Trying to use the “Laws of Thermodynamics” to explain human biological functions is pure folly. Scientific laws only apply to laboratory situations where variables are controlled and systems are closed off from all other systems.
The human body is NOT a closed system and our lives DO NOT take place in laboratories. To put it simply, calories are units of heat, not measures of potency.0 -
Trying to use the “Laws of Thermodynamics” to explain human biological functions is pure folly. Scientific laws only apply to laboratory situations where variables are controlled and systems are closed off from all other systems.
The human body is NOT a closed system and our lives DO NOT take place in laboratories. To put it simply, calories are units of heat, not measures of potency.
So how do you feel that this conversation is working out for you?
Do you think you're making your point effectively? I think you're doing a piss poor, terrible job, because whatever point you may have is lurking far beneath your attitude and arrogance.
Way to go.
Thermodynamics doesn't apply to the human body, in this aspect. It is often times not understood correctly on these boards. People stick by this, even though scientists (who aren't biased and payed off) have clearly stated our bodies to not burn the way the studies for thermodynamics are tested. It does NOT apply to the human body in this aspects...It just doesn't apply. Its all over the interne that this is a VERY common misconception with the new wave of ignorant health nuts.0 -
The human body is NOT a closed system and our lives DO NOT take place in laboratories. To put it simply, calories are units of heat, not measures of potency.0
-
Trying to use the “Laws of Thermodynamics” to explain human biological functions is pure folly. Scientific laws only apply to laboratory situations where variables are controlled and systems are closed off from all other systems.
The human body is NOT a closed system and our lives DO NOT take place in laboratories. To put it simply, calories are units of heat, not measures of potency.
So how do you feel that this conversation is working out for you?
Do you think you're making your point effectively? I think you're doing a piss poor, terrible job, because whatever point you may have is lurking far beneath your attitude and arrogance.
Way to go.
Thermodynamics doesn't apply to the human body, in this aspect. It is often times not understood correctly on these boards. People stick by this, even though scientists (who aren't biased and payed off) have clearly stated our bodies to not burn the way the studies for thermodynamics are tested. It does NOT apply to the human body in this aspects...It just doesn't apply. Its all over the interne that this is a VERY common misconception with the new wave of ignorant health nuts.
Calorie in / calorie out does determine gain or loss. However, the body is very complex and can up or down regulate metabolism and can up or down regulate hunger. These are complex interactions between your hormonal and digestive systems and there are many ways to positively impact these systems.0 -
The human body is NOT a closed system and our lives DO NOT take place in laboratories. To put it simply, calories are units of heat, not measures of potency.
In your own words, please explain the correlation between my calories in/out and my weight that I've measured for so many years.0 -
The human body is NOT a closed system and our lives DO NOT take place in laboratories. To put it simply, calories are units of heat, not measures of potency.
you can define the boundary such that it can be modeled as a closed system. you can also analyze all possible exceptions and dismiss those that are negligible.
do you even have a background in the physical sciences or engineering?
i ask because you don't seem to understand some very simple concepts.0 -
The problem with "a calorie is a calorie" is that it does not account for the synergistic effects of selecting the wrong type of calories.
For example, when I eat my spinach salad and lean turkey, I feel satiated and do not require additional calories.
However, when I eat even one single homemade sugar cookie, it sets off a cataclysmic chain reaction where my metabolism skyrockets causing me to crave more cookies as if I were going to die, ultimately resulting in the ingestion of every cookie within arm's reach and me lying on the floor of the kitchen crying and wondering why I cannot remain on my diet.
QED0 -
Oh brother... not this thread... again!
Yes it is 100%... No it's not... Yes it is.... Gifs.... /end thread and return to counting calories
I have nothing to add, except we should go out for sushi sometime.
0 -
The problem with "a calorie is a calorie" is that it does not account for the synergistic effects of selecting the wrong type of calories.
For example, when I eat my spinach salad and lean turkey, I feel satiated and do not require additional calories.
However, when I eat even one single homemade sugar cookie, it sets off a cataclysmic chain reaction where my metabolism skyrockets causing me to crave more cookies as if I were going to die, ultimately resulting in the ingestion of every cookie within arm's reach and me lying on the floor of the kitchen crying and wondering why I cannot remain on my diet.
QED
your metabolism doesn't change in that scenario. you're just overstuffing your piehole.
QED0 -
So are you arguing that a calorie is a calorie or that clean eating vs not so clean eating is better or that calories in vs calories out is nonsense? . its like you took two topics and smashed them together..
No it doesn't...
No what doesn't? I was asking the OP to clarify what they are trying to say..
It isn't like they smashed two topics together.
What they are suggesting is that a diet of 80-10-10, 10-80-10-, or 10-10-80 of equal caloric content will not produce the same results over time.
Which is partially true. In the short term, the results would be similar, but as time goes on the differences will become greater. This is mainly due to the change in body composition as a result. But other factors would be at play as well, such as increased/decreased output as a result of less energy from lower carb/lower fat.
Right - it's more like 3 topics.
1) The emphasis on the word 'theory' to imply that the laws of thermodynamics as applied to weight loss is 'just a theory'
2) The kind of calories make a difference
3) a calorie is a calorie.
Bottom line is - a calorie is a calorie. If you could somehow find a way to 100% accurately measure the calories you burn and the calories you eat, you would undoubtedly find that a calorie is a calorie.
But, since all we can do is estimate, the type of calories matter in as far as how it affects your body composition, which in turn affects your estimate on how many calories you burn. A 200 lb man with 10% body fat will burn more calories per day doing the same activities as a 200 lb man with 30% body fat. But most calorie estimators do not take into account body composition when determining calories expended. So, you're never going to get a completely accurate picture of your calorie expenditure every day, only an estimate. And, if your diet is 80% carbs, chances are you will lost muscle mass compared to the guy who is eating 80% protein. So, your macros will affect your TDEE estimates because it will affect your body composition.
I won't even go into the 'just a theory' argument, since it's completely asinine.0 -
The problem with "a calorie is a calorie" is that it does not account for the synergistic effects of selecting the wrong type of calories.
For example, when I eat my spinach salad and lean turkey, I feel satiated and do not require additional calories.
However, when I eat even one single homemade sugar cookie, it sets off a cataclysmic chain reaction where my metabolism skyrockets causing me to crave more cookies as if I were going to die, ultimately resulting in the ingestion of every cookie within arm's reach and me lying on the floor of the kitchen crying and wondering why I cannot remain on my diet.
QED
your metabolism doesn't change in that scenario. you're just overstuffing your piehole.
QED
Wow, people here are so mean0 -
So are you arguing that a calorie is a calorie or that clean eating vs not so clean eating is better or that calories in vs calories out is nonsense? . its like you took two topics and smashed them together..
No it doesn't...
No what doesn't? I was asking the OP to clarify what they are trying to say..
It isn't like they smashed two topics together.
What they are suggesting is that a diet of 80-10-10, 10-80-10-, or 10-10-80 of equal caloric content will not produce the same results over time.
Which is partially true. In the short term, the results would be similar, but as time goes on the differences will become greater. This is mainly due to the change in body composition as a result. But other factors would be at play as well, such as increased/decreased output as a result of less energy from lower carb/lower fat.
Right - it's more like 3 topics.
1) The emphasis on the word 'theory' to imply that the laws of thermodynamics as applied to weight loss is 'just a theory'
2) The kind of calories make a difference
3) a calorie is a calorie.
Bottom line is - a calorie is a calorie. If you could somehow find a way to 100% accurately measure the calories you burn and the calories you eat, you would undoubtedly find that a calorie is a calorie.
But, since all we can do is estimate, the type of calories matter in as far as how it affects your body composition, which in turn affects your estimate on how many calories you burn. A 200 lb man with 10% body fat will burn more calories per day doing the same activities as a 200 lb man with 30% body fat. But most calorie estimators do not take into account body composition when determining calories expended. So, you're never going to get a completely accurate picture of your calorie expenditure every day, only an estimate. And, if your diet is 80% carbs, chances are you will lost muscle mass compared to the guy who is eating 80% protein. So, your macros will affect your TDEE estimates because it will affect your body composition.
I won't even go into the 'just a theory' argument, since it's completely asinine.
I was just trying to play Devil's Advocate.0 -
0 -
Lol, someone's always going to try to confuse others when it comes to weight loss.
Pick a program. Any program. Regardless of which one it is, they all have one thing in common.............................calorie deficit for weight loss.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions