It is NOT that simple.

I wasn't looking for advice! Yes, people mentioned "medical conditions" but no one asked me directly, and I didn't care to share because I wasn't trying to make it about my story--just using it as an EXAMPLE!!! One... little... example. Good grief. Are you all lawyers in here?? Seriously, this is getting old explaining this for the umpteenth time. This isn't about ME. It's not about my ONE example. It's about people's reactions, tones, and lack of support towards others. It's about making broad generalizations and insulting anyone who disagrees with you, or who might be the exception, whether they know it or not. It's about being mean-spirited and looking for reasons to talk down to other people. It's about perpetuating this notion of simplicity, and the implication behind it, which is that if you don't succeed by it, you must be ignorant or a liar. It's about the fact that right off the bat, when I shared my ONE example, I was told, without anyone asking anything, that I must have done it wrong and I was lying. Is that not a problem??

I mean, I thought we were here to support each other and to give positive advice; not to drill into people's heads that CICO is the end of the story and you can't succeed by any other means. I thought this would be more well-balanced and open-minded; not people who berate and insult anyone who suggests that--heaven forbid!--someone eat quinoa instead of white rice, or stop drinking diet soda, or maybe not have ramen anymore, or--worst of all--actually have full-fat yogurt (gasp!). I've seen people truly trying to help others to achieve better help, and offering great advice, only to be cut down and smothered in "No, it's just CICO, that's all you need to know." No, that's not all there is to it, and every single person here is an individual, has a different body, and should be considered--and should be spoken to kindly and with respect, and not with the assumption that they are lying or too ignorant to figure out "basic math". Be realistic. Not everyone can be put into that neat little CICO pile, and not everyone will be successful with the same nutritional changes. So why push it so hard that you wind up discouraging others who are just trying to get healthy?

The entire post was about you and your struggles with CI/CO. You went in depth to how many cals you ate, how it didn't work and how you then lowered cals again, still to no avail. How can you honestly not think disclosing WHY it didn't work wasn't worth mentioning?

By the way............physics is not the same as human biochemistry, which makes the Calories In / Calories out theory incorrect and irrelevant.

It is the same thing, and I suspect you are misquoting your endocrinologist.

The way calories are counted in foods is by literally burning them and measuring the energy, which is not how your body gains the energy from foods. I am certain your endocrinologist knows this, and it is you who does not. Until now.

I haven't misunderstood him at all. He is saying that we should not apply thermodynamics to the human body.

Calories weren't even intended to be a reference to food. It is merely a measurement and not something your body uses for fuel. What your body does use is what it finds in the foods and liquids it digests. If you put crap in your body, you're not going to be better off just because of a low-calorie rating.

It's not that hard to understand.

You are still not getting my point.

You are claiming physics has nothing to do with energy metabolism, when our metabolism is nothing but physics and your doctor is as certain to know this as well as anyone. Its not magic.

Yes, the way calories are counted is not how your body does it, because your body does not combust calories like a car combusts gasoline in an engine, rather it uses chemical reactions (beware, physics!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_pump

In cell respiration, the proton pump uses energy to transport protons from the matrix of the mitochondrion to the inner and outer mitochondrial membranes. It is an active pump, that allows for a concentration gradient along the inner mitochondrial membrane, because there are more protons outside the matrix than inside. The difference in pH and electric charge (ignoring differences in buffer capacity) creates an electrochemical potential that works as if it were similar to a battery or storage unit for energy for the cell,.The process could also be seen as analogous to cycling uphill or charging a battery for later use, as it produces potential energy. The proton pump does not create energy, but forms a gradient that stores energy for later use.

But as shorthand, calories are fairly easy to work with as long as you understand the differences between the energy obtained from different sources of foods. I understand these differences. I understand that different sugars are handled in different ways. I understand that fat calories are handled somewhat differently than sugar calories. Most of this can be learned by understanding enough about liver function. It's not so difficult that someone of moderate intelligence and a bit of google fu can't understand. And it is all most definitely science, and it hasn't escaped the second law of thermodynamics as you claim.

Treating the human body like a motor completely ignores all of endocrinology; the hormones involved in the mechanisms of energy storage and release. Therein lies the real flaw of the “calories in, calories out” hypothesis. When endocrinology is ignored, it is easy to think that fat people are fat because they don’t exercise or they eat too much. For some folks, that is true. But for people with metabolic syndrome who suffer from chronically elevated insulin levels and insulin resistance, the opposite is true. Taubes’ genius lies in the fact that he was able to properly identify the cause and the effect. If someone has chronically elevated insulin levels or insulin resistance, fat stores are not accessible for energy. In this case, fat people don’t exercise because they are fat, or eat too much because they are fat. Obesity is the cause; lethargy and hunger are the effect. Everything gets turned on its head.

By the way............physics is not the same as human biochemistry, which makes the Calories In / Calories out theory incorrect and irrelevant.

It is the same thing, and I suspect you are misquoting your endocrinologist.

The way calories are counted in foods is by literally burning them and measuring the energy, which is not how your body gains the energy from foods. I am certain your endocrinologist knows this, and it is you who does not. Until now.

I haven't misunderstood him at all. He is saying that we should not apply thermodynamics to the human body.

Calories weren't even intended to be a reference to food. It is merely a measurement and not something your body uses for fuel. What your body does use is what it finds in the foods and liquids it digests. If you put crap in your body, you're not going to be better off just because of a low-calorie rating.

It's not that hard to understand.

You are still not getting my point.

You are claiming physics has nothing to do with energy metabolism, when our metabolism is nothing but physics and your doctor is as certain to know this as well as anyone. Its not magic.

Yes, the way calories are counted is not how your body does it, because your body does not combust calories like a car combusts gasoline in an engine, rather it uses chemical reactions (beware, physics!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_pump

In cell respiration, the proton pump uses energy to transport protons from the matrix of the mitochondrion to the inner and outer mitochondrial membranes. It is an active pump, that allows for a concentration gradient along the inner mitochondrial membrane, because there are more protons outside the matrix than inside. The difference in pH and electric charge (ignoring differences in buffer capacity) creates an electrochemical potential that works as if it were similar to a battery or storage unit for energy for the cell,.The process could also be seen as analogous to cycling uphill or charging a battery for later use, as it produces potential energy. The proton pump does not create energy, but forms a gradient that stores energy for later use.

But as shorthand, calories are fairly easy to work with as long as you understand the differences between the energy obtained from different sources of foods. I understand these differences. I understand that different sugars are handled in different ways. I understand that fat calories are handled somewhat differently than sugar calories. Most of this can be learned by understanding enough about liver function. It's not so difficult that someone of moderate intelligence and a bit of google fu can't understand. And it is all most definitely science, and it hasn't escaped the second law of thermodynamics as you claim.

Treating the human body like a motor completely ignores all of endocrinology; the hormones involved in the mechanisms of energy storage and release. Therein lies the real flaw of the “calories in, calories out” hypothesis. When endocrinology is ignored, it is easy to think that fat people are fat because they don’t exercise or they eat too much. For some folks, that is true. But for people with metabolic syndrome who suffer from chronically elevated insulin levels and insulin resistance, the opposite is true. Taubes’ genius lies in the fact that he was able to properly identify the cause and the effect. If someone has chronically elevated insulin levels or insulin resistance, fat stores are not accessible for energy. In this case, fat people don’t exercise because they are fat, or eat too much because they are fat. Obesity is the cause; lethargy and hunger are the effect. Everything gets turned on its head.

Yeah it totally sucks!! Damn you genes and environment!

Treating the human body like a motor completely ignores all of endocrinology; the hormones involved in the mechanisms of energy storage and release. Therein lies the real flaw of the “calories in, calories out” hypothesis. When endocrinology is ignored, it is easy to think that fat people are fat because they don’t exercise or they eat too much. For some folks, that is true. But for people with metabolic syndrome who suffer from chronically elevated insulin levels and insulin resistance, the opposite is true. Taubes’ genius lies in the fact that he was able to properly identify the cause and the effect. If someone has chronically elevated insulin levels or insulin resistance, fat stores are not accessible for energy. In this case, fat people don’t exercise because they are fat, or eat too much because they are fat. Obesity is the cause; lethargy and hunger are the effect. Everything gets turned on its head.

I had insulin resistance too. Exercise is proven in studies to reduce it. As I am too poor to go to expensive endos and buy books from pop science writers, I chose to forgo metformin and use the local free fitness center in my apartment complex.

It was hard, no doubt about it. I had over 100 pounds to lose and I have post thrombotic syndrome in my legs. I started slow and just kept it up and up and up. But it probably saved my life and it has certainly helped me to get employed and back on my feet again.

By the way............physics is not the same as human biochemistry, which makes the Calories In / Calories out theory incorrect and irrelevant.

It is the same thing, and I suspect you are misquoting your endocrinologist.

The way calories are counted in foods is by literally burning them and measuring the energy, which is not how your body gains the energy from foods. I am certain your endocrinologist knows this, and it is you who does not. Until now.

I haven't misunderstood him at all. He is saying that we should not apply thermodynamics to the human body.

Calories weren't even intended to be a reference to food. It is merely a measurement and not something your body uses for fuel. What your body does use is what it finds in the foods and liquids it digests. If you put crap in your body, you're not going to be better off just because of a low-calorie rating.

It's not that hard to understand.

You are still not getting my point.

You are claiming physics has nothing to do with energy metabolism, when our metabolism is nothing but physics and your doctor is as certain to know this as well as anyone. Its not magic.

Yes, the way calories are counted is not how your body does it, because your body does not combust calories like a car combusts gasoline in an engine, rather it uses chemical reactions (beware, physics!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_pump

In cell respiration, the proton pump uses energy to transport protons from the matrix of the mitochondrion to the inner and outer mitochondrial membranes. It is an active pump, that allows for a concentration gradient along the inner mitochondrial membrane, because there are more protons outside the matrix than inside. The difference in pH and electric charge (ignoring differences in buffer capacity) creates an electrochemical potential that works as if it were similar to a battery or storage unit for energy for the cell,.The process could also be seen as analogous to cycling uphill or charging a battery for later use, as it produces potential energy. The proton pump does not create energy, but forms a gradient that stores energy for later use.

But as shorthand, calories are fairly easy to work with as long as you understand the differences between the energy obtained from different sources of foods. I understand these differences. I understand that different sugars are handled in different ways. I understand that fat calories are handled somewhat differently than sugar calories. Most of this can be learned by understanding enough about liver function. It's not so difficult that someone of moderate intelligence and a bit of google fu can't understand. And it is all most definitely science, and it hasn't escaped the second law of thermodynamics as you claim.

Treating the human body like a motor completely ignores all of endocrinology; the hormones involved in the mechanisms of energy storage and release. Therein lies the real flaw of the “calories in, calories out” hypothesis. When endocrinology is ignored, it is easy to think that fat people are fat because they don’t exercise or they eat too much. For some folks, that is true. But for people with metabolic syndrome who suffer from chronically elevated insulin levels and insulin resistance, the opposite is true. Taubes’ genius lies in the fact that he was able to properly identify the cause and the effect. If someone has chronically elevated insulin levels or insulin resistance, fat stores are not accessible for energy. In this case, fat people don’t exercise because they are fat, or eat too much because they are fat. Obesity is the cause; lethargy and hunger are the effect. Everything gets turned on its head.

No, Taubes only asked the question differently. Of course low carbers took that as proof that thermodynamics isn't valid. Go reread what he said. For example we can say that obesity is caused from more energy entering the system than leaving, but it can be interpreted a different way. For example, does the change in mass (increase) cause over eating. In other words does getting fatter drive fat storage as opposed to fat oxidation. Neither of these scenarios violates thermodynamics. Our hormones and increased dysfunctional metabolic pathways make it more difficult for people to lose weight, but this doesn't mean that that is unique and for reasons unknown we continue to be fat. We only need to find ways to lose weight, and low carb is one way, and it works extremely well for a large percentage of the population that have very high circulating blood glucose, in not only reversing many of the metabolic symptoms of MetS, but curtailing the taste for sugar and at the same time consuming foods that are more satiating. There's also societies that don't have an obesity crisis happening (Japan, China, Italy ) that consume 60 to 70 % of their daily calories in carbs and the reason is they consume fewer daily calories, less sugar consumption and lower total glucose load on the body, not magic.

Excellent...you ate more, and were able to lose the weight.

Where those calories came from is irrelevant, however.
You would have lost either way.

I agree. Hard to believe the starvation myth is still floating around .... a non-pc example is annorexia. Sad to mention such a delicate topic I know - but to help the point - those poor folk don't eat much, and their bodies didn't retain fat for them. Anyway - I've tried both higher cals and lower cals. Made no difference. Either way, I lose fat when I watch the quality of calories, and keep sugar cals down. I keep losing fat if I eat more fat than I think I should too - MUFTA's (mono-unsaturated fatty acids). Eat more fat. eat less sugar! But that's just what works for me ...

Thank you! I agree! It is not that simple. It is also so important to think of quality and health, not just the number on the scale.

I just think it takes a lot of nerve to start on a new program and immediately tell everyone else that they're doing it wrong.

It's your first month here.

If you don't want to use the free calorie counting app and take the advice in the free forums you certainly don't have to.

But for us it's working. LOTS of us. Maybe instead of insisting you're right about everything you could try listening.

But if not you're absolutely free to go. If you're against the idea of counting calories you probably shouldn't use a calorie counting website.

BINGO!

I think that it is just upsetting to people trying to lose weight, when people are always saying CI/CO, and so they keep cutting down calories, more and more, until they're just starving themselves.

...and that's the problem. We're trying to help the OP understand that in order for the body to burn calories, it needs to have fuel to do so. If you don't amply fuel the body, it won't burn and lose. Eating less isn't necessarily the answer in a straight-forward sense. It is, however, burning more than you consume.

It is CI/CO, effectively. It is more complex in the sense of figuring out what number an individual needs to be at, but it isn't "everyone is a special unique snowflake" complex.

And this.

CI/CO doesn't mean don't eat.

I agree that everyone should focus on eating a healthy, balanced diet as well as their caloric deficit....but with that being said I lost 2.8 pounds this week which was one of my worst eating weeks in a while - Subway steak and cheese, Bigmac and other McDonalds, chips, chocolate bars, ice cream....etc. However, I did maintain my deficit and went to the gym every other day.

Quality of food is for health, quantity is for weight loss. Don't get me wrong, I do try to make healthier choices but if all I cared about was losing weight I could lose weight on an all-KFC diet if I chose to.

Actually I heard a doctor on NPR last week and he basically said that calories in and calories out is a fallacy. He advocated for eating whole foods, which is the basis of the whole clean eating movement. Below is the blurb from when he was on Talk of the Nation Science Friday:

In his new book Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease, endocrinologist and obesity doc Robert Lustig deconstructs the mythology of fat. He says exercise, for all its benefits, won't help you shed pounds -- and that fasting only worsens weight gain.

He was also on the Diane Rehm show when a nutritionist called in saying that weight loss is all about calories in and calories out, he basically tore her a new one.

This is basically what my endocrinologist has stated too.

This is MFP ! People on this site know way more than your Doctor . They have read articles on the Internet !

Why Calories Will Never Count…

Do you currently work out? Do you “watch” what you eat? Are you on a diet? If so, then you probably have a calorie counting application on your phone. Or, you’ve had one in the past and can relate. There are a lot of different options for calorie counters to choose from since it’s an easy and straight forward calculation that most—hopefully—can do with a pen and paper. This makes programming such an application as easy as pie (pun intended). The only variables needed are an individual’s weight, height, age, and sex. Factor in the weight loss/gain goal for the individual and voilà, you’ve just calculated the amount of calories to be eaten during the day to reach a specific goal. So simple. So easy. So mechanical. So wrong.


Using weight, height, age, and sex to calculate how much food you should be eating for a specific goal is an absurdity. Period.
The rate at which individuals burn calories varies greatly, and cannot be measured. Saying that ‘calories count’ is nothing more a truism. Yes, food has calories, but it means nothing substantively since there are countless of other variables that determine what happens to those calories and how they impact the rest of the interconnected human systems. In order to truly understand why calorie counting, as a measure of guiding dietary practices, is highly inaccurate and, arguably, unhealthy for our society’s food production systems, one must examine relevant variables that impact the human body’s metabolism.



Whole Foods Matter
There are important reasons to ‘count chemicals, not calories’ when choosing foods; and they have direct implications on the validity of a caloric number and the process of calorie counting. For one, highly processed foods can artificially stimulate dopamine, the pleasure neurotransmitter, which creates cravings and can lead to addictions (1). While this does not directly increase or decrease calorie absorption in the body, it surely leads to behaviors that make calorie counting even more difficult. If a person is constantly eating foods designed to make them crave more, willpower only lasts so long. Prevalent additives in processed foods like high fructose corn syrup, sugar, and MSG have been linked to weight gain and obesity (2). If we focused solely on caloric intake, these substances could hinder fitness goals and, more importantly, health.

The differences between whole and processed foods also impacts the actual net caloric number associated with the food. Whole and processed calories are just not the same. To start, the thermic effect of food, which is used to describe the energy expended (calories burned) in order to digest and process food, is different when comparing eating whole foods and processed foods. In one study, the thermic effect of the whole food meal was almost double that of the processed food meal.(3) In addition, depending on whole food or processed food choice, the resting metabolic rate after digestion was altered in significantly different ways. For those who ate the processed food meal, their metabolic rates dropped below their average resting metabolic rate (RMR) during the fourth hour after eating, while the whole food meal group never fell below the RMR, meaning whole food eaters were ‘burning’ calories at a higher rate during their resting state long after the meal actually ended.(3)

While most calorie counting proponents base their arguments on the laws of thermodynamics (despite the fact these are based on mechanical and closed systems, something the human body definitely is not), one study finds that the notion that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ is a direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics. The study notes that the “second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a “calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle.”(4) Even the different macronutrients—proteins, carbohydrates, and fats—require different amounts of energy (calories) to be burned to breakdown, absorb, and use. Protein is the most complex macronutrient and, therefore, takes the most energy. Fat takes the least amount of energy to metabolize and carbohydrates fall between fat and protein. None of these thermic factors are accounted for in the calorie equation. Thus, depending on the food you eat, a calorie is NOT always a calorie.



Individual Digestive Differences
Every single person’s digestive system is anatomically and functionally different. We may all have the same parts, but they come in all different shapes and sizes, especially after a lifetime of lifestyle choices. Varying intestinal lengths and structures create different and dynamic ways in which the gut adapts to diet, disease, and damage. (5) Surely, these variables impact caloric breakdown and absorption rates. Of course, stomach acids and digestive enzymes in individuals will breakdown foods at different rates and varying degrees of efficiency and effectiveness. This can happen when someone’s digestive health is compromised from consuming too many processed foods that damage intestinal lining, thus impacting the secretion of these essential digestive acids and enzymes.

Even the foods you select can impact digestion. Eating fermented foods like sauerkraut and raw foods like raw milk means that you are also consuming the bacteria and enzymes that will help break down the foods once consumed, removing some of the digestive burden from your body and allowing for a more thorough digestive process.(6) This also means that an individual’s gut flora will also be a variable to consider in the digestion equation. The interplay of these variables significantly impact the actual amount of calories burned and absorbed through the digestive process making the process of counting calories a pointless act.



Hormones, Hormones, Hormones
Lastly, every substance that goes through the digestive process is a drug. This is because every substance, including food, will have a direct affect on hormone levels. Why are hormones important? Hormones, in large part, dictate fat distribution, body composition, and metabolic functions. (7) In one study, the diminished secretion of growth hormone was responsible for a general decrease of lean body mass and the increase of fat mass. All the calorie counting the world cannot override imbalanced hormones. (8) Since it is macronutrients, not calories, that impact hormones to a much greater degree, they can be considered superior to calories in determining food choices.

Carbohydrates, particularly those with a higher glycemic index, immediately increase the level of the hormone insulin, one of the key hormones and drivers involved with fat storage. This is a highly complex process that certainly has more to do than simply insulin, but this simple representation helps paint a clearer picture. When you eat a lot of carbohydrates, insulin levels are constantly elevated. As this dietary pattern continues, chronically elevated insulin makes the cells resistant to the insulin, which consequently elevates the stress hormone cortisol. This hormonal cascade contributes significantly to fat gain.(9)

Finally, the discussion turns to the all important stress hormone, cortisol. Frequent and long-term exposure to cortisol is associated excess abdominal fat (10, 11). So for those people counting calories to lose fat, adding more stress to an already stressful life with the time-consuming process of calorie counting is counterproductive. Better to relax and simply choose meals that include wide varieties of whole foods.



Bringing to Together
The most important factor in all of the above mentioned points is that all of these inputs and metabolic processes are constantly and endlessly changing within the body. What this is means is that the human metabolism, the rate at which ‘calories’ are supposedly burned, is constantly in flux and always changing. In other words, calorie counting is an attempt at calculating and specifying the impossible: a moving target.

Admittedly, one point can be conceded in defense of calorie counting. If someone needs calorie counting in order to hold him or herself accountable to healthy food choices, by all means, continue. Whatever motivation or method an individual needs to make healthy choices—whether a vision board, a six pack, Jesus, calorie counting, or bikini season—is fine. Just know that the actual calculation is bogus. And stress inducing. F@%# stress.

The real downfall of calorie counting, however, is something that is much more important than whether a calculated number is accurate or not. Calorie counting perpetuates our current disease and obesity epidemics. Yup, I said it.

Calorie counting is one of the contributing factors to our nation’s diminishing food quality, thus leading to the current prevalence of chronic health issues.
By focusing on calories, people become disconnected from their own body. They no longer ‘listen’ to the way their body reacts to food and instead focus on an arbitrary number that does not acknowledge the intrinsic quality of the food choice. Just like your cholesterol level does not paint a complete picture of your health, a certain amount of calories does not determine anything substantive about the health of the food you eat. With a society focused on calories and other numbers on nutrition labels, many of us couldn’t care less about what we eat as long as it doesn’t take us over our ‘1,500 daily limit’, or whatever the number might be. This is obviously the wrong mental mindset. 100 calories of apple is different from 100 calories of a Snickers bar. 100 calories of grass-fed beef is different than 100 calories of a Muscle Milk protein shake. This reductionist perspective has transformed our food systems. Food engineers create ‘foods’ that conform to irrational expectations of what constitutes food.

The bottom line is that no one eats calories. Hopefully, they eat food, something that carries with it loads more complexity than a single number can ever convey. A level of complexity that, quite arguably, will never be fully understood. Calories are just a measurement—like a foot, an inch, or pound—and have no real substance. The community garden down the street from the LEAF Wellness Center is about 50 feet long. What does this measurement really tell me about the garden? Nothing. By definition, a calorie is a unit of heat equal to the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree at one atmosphere pressure. Does that sound like a human body to you?

The calorie theory, as used for dietary protocols, is based on the heat engine analogy, also known as thermodynamics. The human body is not a heat engine. The human body is not a machine. Even machines like cars do not burn their “fuels” at constant rates due to factors such as tire pressure, oil level, oil quality, etc. The human body is an infinitely more complex and open system. The human digestive system is not akin to a conveyor belt taking food through a mechanical system that extracts nutrients from within the food. Instead, food is converted into complex substances and structures through various series of reactions within the body. Most importantly, that process and its respective efficiency and effectiveness are different for every individual and based on many interconnected variables.

The true fuel value of any natural unprocessed food is dependent on many intrinsic qualities such as type, quality, freshness and ripeness. Do you really get the same value from unripe and pesticide-grown tomatoes you eat in January as you get from sweet and ripe tomatoes organically grown in a backyard in summer, eaten right off the vine? The calorie system says “yes”. Common sense, science, and nature say otherwise.


Works Cited
1. Goldhammer, Alan, D.C., Dietary Addictions: Why eating healthfully is so difficult. National Health Association.

2. Tsang, Gloria, R.D. and Girdler, Lauren. MSG and Your Weight. September 2008. Health Castle.

3. Barr, S., Wright, J. Postprandial Energy Expenditure in Whole-Food and Processed-Food Meals: Implications for Daily Energy Expenditure. Food and Nutrition Research. July 2010.

4. Feinman, Richard, and Fine, Eugene. “A Calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics. Nutritional Journal. July 2004.

5. Weaver, L., Austin, S., and Cole, T. Small Interstinal length: a factor essential for gut adaptation. BMJ Journal. October 2012.

6. Parvez, S., Malik, K.A., Kang, S., and Kim, H.Y. Journal of Applied Microbiology. June 2006.

7. Svendsen, OL., Hassager, C., and Christiansen, C. Relationships and independence of body composition, sex hormones, fat distribution and other cardiovascular risk factors in overweight postmenopausal women. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders. 1993.

8. Rudman, Daniel. Effects of Human Growth Hormone in Men over 60 Years Old. The New England Journal of Medicine. July 1990.

9. Taubes, Gary. What if it’s All Been a Big Fat Lie? New York Times. July 2002.

10. Rosmond, Roland. Stress-Related Cortisol Secretion in Men: Relationships with Abdominal Obesity and Endocrine Metabolic and Hemodynamic Abnormalities. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. June 1998.

11. Moyer, Anne. Stress-Induced Response and Fat Distribution in Women. Obesity Reseach. September 2012.

Actually I heard a doctor on NPR last week and he basically said that calories in and calories out is a fallacy. He advocated for eating whole foods, which is the basis of the whole clean eating movement. Below is the blurb from when he was on Talk of the Nation Science Friday:

In his new book Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease, endocrinologist and obesity doc Robert Lustig deconstructs the mythology of fat. He says exercise, for all its benefits, won't help you shed pounds -- and that fasting only worsens weight gain.

He was also on the Diane Rehm show when a nutritionist called in saying that weight loss is all about calories in and calories out, he basically tore her a new one.

This is basically what my endocrinologist has stated too.

This is MFP ! People on this site know way more than your Doctor . They have read articles on the Internet !

You know, I read articles on the internet also. I also go to my appointments, ask questions and I am very, very involved in my health and well being.

I often print out things and have lively discussions with my 3 different Doctors about said articles that I printed out and took with me.

The Diet industry (which includes sports trainers) is so flawed and full of myths, it is ridiculous.

Calories in, calories out IS correct. This thread explains all.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing

And this thread debunks everything in that topic.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/368653-the-forever-mirerepresented-first-law-of-thermodynamics-in-d

brb claming to eat 1100 calories, but most likely binging my *kitten* off in secrecy and failing to mention that in my post.