Calories in calories out what science says
Options
Replies
-
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 -
Also - it's not necessarily the laws of thermodynamics, it's the law of conservation of energy. Energy is conserved. So, for any system (our body for example), The amount of energy we take in (by eating) is equal to the amount of energy we expend (through our TDEE) plus the amount of energy we store (as fat). Period.
And the unit of energy is the calorie.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.
So, nothing, right OP? Your expertise is in preaching what *isn't* the answer (in your opinion) but not in what *is* the answer, right?0 -
The weight we gain and lose is not in the form of calories, it's in the form of molecules which have a measurable mass. The ones involved in gaining and losing fat are (typically) retained by the body (and thus we gain weight) because they contain usable calories, and are (typically) released from the body when they are broken down as the calories are utilized.
There is no law of thermodynamics that is directly related to the above retention/release of molecules by the body. The "calories" we talk about aren't even actual calories, they are just a metaphor for "calorie-containing molecules." However, the efficiency with which an individual keeps/utilizes/releases those molecules tends to be consistent enough over time (except when certain diseases intercede) so that the concept of calories in/out still is the only effective way to control one's weight.
All other methods which claim to ignore calories still do create a deficit to produce fat loss. They might mask it by preventing someone from eating all the foods they like, thus producing a low caloric intake, or other smoke-in-mirrors, but it's still ultimately the calorie surplus/deficit itself that produces fat gain/loss.0 -
But what does science say? Has anyone asked science about all this rot? I mean, this thread promised some sort of interview with and or commentary from science, and yet no one has told me what science says!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.
There is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" calories. Calories are a unit of energy. There are foods that are nutrient dense or less nutrient dense or not very nutrient dense but that doesn't make them right or wrong. They can all be good or bad depending on context and dose. You are confusing calories with nutrients.0 -
In a nutshell.Also - it's not necessarily the laws of thermodynamics, it's the law of conservation of energy. Energy is conserved. So, for any system (our body for example), The amount of energy we take in (by eating) is equal to the amount of energy we expend (through our TDEE) plus the amount of energy we store (as fat). Period.
And the unit of energy is the calorie.0 -
The "nutshell" confuses the conservation of energy with the conservation of mass. A closed system can lose or gain energy without changing mass. The only way to lose weight through a loss of energy is through an atomic reaction. Those are not happening in your body (unless you are very unlucky).
The main way that we lose weight is by breathing. We inhale O2 and we exhale CO2. That's a loss of excess carbon with every breath we take. We also lose weight by urinating and sweating. This has us lose H2O. Both CO2 and H2O are the results of the oxidation process that happens within our cells. And we happen to get rid of this waste with nearly perfect efficiency.
Thus, we burn O2 that we breath, and fuel in our body. This creates waste largely in the form of CO2 and water. We eliminate the waste. The burning process causes the waste, and that is what creates the link between burning calories and losing weight. But its not a direct link. And the loss of weight is a loss of mass, not energy.0 -
You must be a friend of the OP. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.The "nutshell" confuses the conservation of energy with the conservation of mass. A closed system can lose or gain energy without changing mass. The only way to lose weight through a loss of energy is through an atomic reaction. Those are not happening in your body (unless you are very unlucky).
The main way that we lose weight is by breathing. We inhale O2 and we exhale CO2. That's a loss of excess carbon with every breath we take. We also lose weight by urinating and sweating. This has us lose H2O. Both CO2 and H2O are the results of the oxidation process that happens within our cells. And we happen to get rid of this waste with nearly perfect efficiency.
Thus, we burn O2 that we breath, and fuel in our body. This creates waste largely in the form of CO2 and water. We eliminate the waste. The burning process causes the waste, and that is what creates the link between burning calories and losing weight. But its not a direct link. And the loss of weight is a loss of mass, not energy.0 -
DuffyPrat? Perfect username. Strong first post.0
-
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 398 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 977 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions