21 day 5000 calorie challenge: debunking the calorie myth?

1…5681011…13

Replies

  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,128 Member
    http://www.why-low-carb-diets-work.com/first-law-of-thermodynamics.html

    Interesting website comparing the law of thermodynamics to the lipophilia theories. I feel the body's chemistry is sufficiently complex that the thermodynamics theory is a poor model for understanding how diets work.

    Good luck.
    Or that we don't fully understand all of the complexities and therefore deduce that it must be thermodynamics. Nothing worse than a puzzle with a piece missing, eh.
  • pcastagner
    pcastagner Posts: 1,606 Member
    http://www.why-low-carb-diets-work.com/first-law-of-thermodynamics.html

    Interesting website comparing the law of thermodynamics to the lipophilia theories. I feel the body's chemistry is sufficiently complex that the thermodynamics theory is a poor model for understanding how diets work.

    Good luck.
    Or that we don't fully understand all of the complexities and therefore deduce that it must be thermodynamics. Nothing worse than a puzzle with a piece missing, eh.

    Again, you are confused. Thermodynamics regards adding or taking energy from a system, entropy, complexity, etc... If the energy never actually enters the system, not becoming more complex is what happens. If the energy enters, then leaves, same deal.


    Predictions of what comsititutes a surplus or deficit are based on averages and are not themselves natural laws, nor does an outlier prove or disprove a basic natural law.
  • tootoop224
    tootoop224 Posts: 281 Member
    Just had a rather long discussion on twitter with the person doing the experiment. His point seems to be that the calorie is not the best measure of energy as it applies to the human body and he wants to improve on it. I pointed out that by changing his macros from 30% carbs to 10%, he was skewing the data because he would be losing water weight at the same time gaining muscle/fat. His take was that while HE differentiated between water weight and “real” weight, a CALORIE does not. I think the point is specious relative to real weight gain, but have to grant him that the fact that by changing the macro-nutrient %'s, he offset the caloric changes short term. Again specious, but accurate. If it leads to some better way to measure energy in the human body, great, but my concern was that people would see the experiment and think that if they ate “clean” they could eat all they want and not gain weight. I expressed this concern and asked that he address it in his conclusion.

    Sounds like he is better at working out than thinking. Did he actually say a calorie doesn't know something? They are sentient now?
    You have to take that comment about calories "knowing" in context. Remember, it's twitter and limited to 140 characters. His point was that the body reacts differently to different types of calories based on which macro-nutrient they are delivered by. In the example, cutting carbs results in water weight loss. Therefore, "a calorie is a calorie" is a myth.

    A calorie IS a calorie (although I also do agree, protein is the most important); it's things like fluid,hormone balance, and body composition that make people THINK thermodynamics somehow goes out the window. Fat loss is non linear and there's plenty of reasons/theories out there for it.

    At the end of the day though if you know the RIGHT calorie balance (IE have an accurate picture of your metabolism) you can do what you want with your body. Most of this is best guess work though, and why people anecdotally refute cals in/out (there's simply a ton of variables to account for).
    I think that is the exact point he is trying to make.
  • tootoop224
    tootoop224 Posts: 281 Member
    but it will tell us if 3,500 surplus calories = 1 lb. of weight gain.

    I respectfully disagree.

    The only thing he will determine based on the construct of his experiment is the rate at which he gains or loses weight given the current intake of calories and macronutrients.

    The more accurate outcome is that his weight will change by a given amount and he can then determine how much of a surplus or deficit he was truly in.
    I agree. I should have added "for him, during this experiment" to the end of my sentence above. And, I think that is his point. If he can eat 3,500 surplus calories and it doesn't = 1 lb. of weight gained, then it can drive a conversation about why, and potentially lead to a better understanding of how the body processes energy beyond the simplicity of calories in v. calories out.
  • sarahmoo12
    sarahmoo12 Posts: 756 Member
    bumping to read later !
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    but it will tell us if 3,500 surplus calories = 1 lb. of weight gain

    That number already has an assumed split of fat to non-fat built in of around 70:30. If he was doing an energy balance - which he isn't - then he would account for fat content changes (he can't, he isn't measuring it) at the calorific value of fat and FFM at a lower value.

    1 lb = 454g * 9 cals/g = 4086 calories.
  • tomcornhole
    tomcornhole Posts: 1,084 Member
    I just did a one day challenge (7,300 cal) and gained 4 lbs. Then I lost 5.4 lbs the next day. I should stop drinking water.
  • freerange
    freerange Posts: 1,722 Member
    Arguing against the first law of thermodynamics?

    Ambitious to put it nicely.

    It's a little more complicated than that. What the research that I've been reading seems to show is that both count. Calories count, but not all calories are equal. The law of themodynamics would work perfectly for the calories-in-calories-out thoeyr except that they're finding our bodies aren't calorimeters. They burn some foods more completely than others, and it takes more "effort" to burn some calories than others. Also glycemic index and glycemic load play a role. We're complicated little machines.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304458604577490943279845790.html

    I'm not advocating one way or another way. Just saying the research indicates that type of calories does count, though it's not the be-all-end-all.

    I don't think you and I have the same concept when it comes to the laws of thermodynamics.


    But at least you are not making the other goofball argument in this thread:

    Science has been wrong before, then made a correction
    Someone is attempting to make a correction
    Therefore, someone must be right and science must be wrong


    Because, you know, like, science used to say earth is the center of the universe, and, like, thought there were too few stars

    Yep that's it, science is the end all to all knowledge. The fool is a person that does not question.
  • totem12
    totem12 Posts: 194 Member
    'Questioning' is what scientists do all day, every day, professionally.

    The fool is the person who reads an article and thinks they now know better.
  • freerange
    freerange Posts: 1,722 Member
    'Questioning' is what scientists do all day, every day, professionally.

    The fool is the person who reads an article and thinks they now know better.


    Yep that's it LOL

    How about this, a fool is a person that reads an article and, because it goes against their paradigm, dismisses it? We can do this all day.
  • NoleGirl0918
    NoleGirl0918 Posts: 213 Member
    Bump for later.
  • LarryLaird
    LarryLaird Posts: 94 Member
    What is wrong with the cal. in cal out?? And there is the KISS method...Keep It Simple Stupid. Cal in Cal out for me!!
  • strongmindstrongbody
    strongmindstrongbody Posts: 315 Member
    So the guy gains only 1.3 kg at the end of the 21 days and actually loses 3 cm around his waist. And he claims it was because of his high fat, natural foods diet. Damn. I did that sort of diet before (minus the 5,000 calorie intake, lol) and didn't lose anything for months. I wonder if he had the results he had because he was already lean at the get-go. Like his body was pushing for homeostasis, working hard to keep his body the way it was.

    Off to read more about this guy's story.
  • strongmindstrongbody
    strongmindstrongbody Posts: 315 Member
    The guy says he's going to do two more experiments. One in September, eating a high refined carb diet, and one in January, eating a high natural carb diet. Curious what his results will be.
  • johnrossmckay
    johnrossmckay Posts: 66 Member
    If it's just a myth then 10000 calories or 15000 calories should be good too. As should 1000 or 500.

    And how, in 21 days do you offset for transient lifestyle changes, thermogenesis, and water retention. Put your money where your mouth is and do it for a year. And get a reasonable sample size, and double blind it so that your results are meaningful. Because the laws of energy conservation and thermodynamics are fact not fiction. You burn calories for fuel. No matter how hard you drive a Prius, you can't pour as much gas (calories) into it as you do a hummer without having to store it in a pool (fat cell) in the back seat. And no matter how wishful the thinking, you can't power a hummer for long on the fuel (calories) you'd use in a Prius. But that Prius will go a long way on the fuel (fat) that is stored in the tank and backseat.
  • totem12
    totem12 Posts: 194 Member
    'Questioning' is what scientists do all day, every day, professionally.

    The fool is the person who reads an article and thinks they now know better.


    Yep that's it LOL

    How about this, a fool is a person that reads an article and, because it goes against their paradigm, dismisses it? We can do this all day.

    I never get this notion that if something goes against a 'paradigm' it is buried. If I was the person to prove that an accepted paradigm was false I'd be set for life.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    He gained but less than he thought he would but he believes it's clean eating. I think he is miscalculating his TDEE based on his activity level by about 400 cals. See his blog. All there.
  • jadedone
    jadedone Posts: 2,446 Member
    I am not impressed. If I chose to move for 8 hours a day or it was my job (as a trainer to move that much) I would burn at least 5000 calories a day. I aim to walk for an hour and a half a day and it says I burn off close to 900 calories. So, basically if I increased that a couple more hours I would be burning close to 5000 a day.

    Actually, your body becomes more efficient and burns less calories. Even with a ton of activity. So although, let's say if today you burned 5000 calories with activity X. Tomorrow (a few months from now), that same workout would burn less calories.
  • LoggingForLife
    LoggingForLife Posts: 504 Member
    Way too many variables.
  • freerange
    freerange Posts: 1,722 Member
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-FWMLPXXi4

Categories