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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.