It's NOT always as simple as a deficit

I think most people are arguing the same thing here. It is about creating a deficit but that deficit need not always be simple.

BMR calculators and the like probably work well for a lot of people out there but in reality they can have up to 20% variance in their results. Everyone's metabolism works differently and a lot of this is down to hormones; thyroid, PCOS and diabetes are examples of hormone imbalances causing dysfunction, but often these imbalances can be asymptomatic and thus very hard to factor into your BMR calculations. There are also unexplained reasons for a variation of almost 30% in BMR between similar individuals.

Here's a very interesting article if you have access: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/427059?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103339568197
Also: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/5/941.long

Aha, this is true, but we are both totally aware that the terminology a calorie = a calorie and CICO talked about in this thread is usually defined the way the study explains:

What do we mean by "a calorie is a calorie?"
Because it is a colloquial phrase, it is important to understand exactly what it is meant by "a calorie is a calorie." The most common meaning is that is it impossible for two isocaloric diets to lead to different weight loss. Frequently, the concept is justified by reference to the "laws of thermodynamics", but an explicit connection has never been spelled out.

I disagree with the definition the study uses and I think the authors are setting up a strawman by using it. That definition only addresses energy input and entirely ignores energy output. The saying is calories in/calories out. The authors are constructing a strawman definition that does not pay any mind to "out".

However, the definition matches the same logic that many posters think they understand in this thread. The "out" is covered in section efficiency and thermogenesis which has also been disregarded by a calorie = a calorie proponents. The "out" is not just BMR and exercise.

Aha, this is true, but we are both totally aware that the terminology a calorie = a calorie and CICO talked about in this thread is usually defined the way the study explains:

What do we mean by "a calorie is a calorie?"
Because it is a colloquial phrase, it is important to understand exactly what it is meant by "a calorie is a calorie." The most common meaning is that is it impossible for two isocaloric diets to lead to different weight loss. Frequently, the concept is justified by reference to the "laws of thermodynamics", but an explicit connection has never been spelled out.

I disagree with the definition the study uses and I think the authors are setting up a strawman by using it. That definition only addresses energy input and entirely ignores energy output. The saying is calories in/calories out. The authors are constructing a strawman definition that does not pay any mind to "out".

However, the definition matches the same logic that many posters think they understand in this thread. The "out" is covered in section efficiency and thermogenesis which has also been disregarded by a calorie = a calorie proponents. The "out" is not just BMR and exercise.

Yes they cover it in the paper and use that to attempt to declare that a calorie is not a calorie. They set up the strawman and then knock it down.

Regarding what other people say regarding calories, I do agree that the derp occurs on both sides of the calorie argument.

^^^ Yes, I agree with everything you have said, except your definition of the term a calorie = a calorie. Your definition differs to a point where a calorie =/= a calorie in the normal sense of the word equal. A calorie deficit is still required for weightloss, totally agree.

I disagree. A calorie is a unit of energy. It's like saying a mile is a mile and a chicken is a chicken and a strawman is a strawman.

The energy OUT side of the equation is very complex. Differences in thermic effect for example, are part of the "out" side of the equation. It's an energy cost. It doesn't change the value of a calorie.

For example, 1000 calories of whey protein has the same number of calories as 1000 calories of pure fat.

They have the same energy value.

But you will expend additional energy consuming the protein and it will be utilized differently than fat.

But the caloric value of each, is 1000.

Aha, this is true, but we are both totally aware that the terminology a calorie = a calorie and CICO talked about in this thread is usually defined the way the study explains:

What do we mean by "a calorie is a calorie?"
Because it is a colloquial phrase, it is important to understand exactly what it is meant by "a calorie is a calorie." The most common meaning is that is it impossible for two isocaloric diets to lead to different weight loss. Frequently, the concept is justified by reference to the "laws of thermodynamics", but an explicit connection has never been spelled out.

I disagree with the definition the study uses and I think the authors are setting up a strawman by using it. That definition only addresses energy input and entirely ignores energy output. The saying is calories in/calories out. The authors are constructing a strawman definition that does not pay any mind to "out".

That would be a very good analysis. Especially since they have completely misdefined the Zeroth, 2nd, and 3rd laws of thermodynamics.

Re: Zeroth

The zeroth law that establishes the concept of temperature

No, it doesn't. It simply states that if 2 systems are in thermal equilibrium with a 3rd system, then those 2 systems are in thermal equilibrium with each other. The reason it's the Zeroth law is because that's basically common sense. It has nothing to do with establishing the concept of temperature.

Re: 2nd

The second law was developed in the context of the industrial revolution and the attempt to understand the efficiency of machines. The law describes the theoretical limits on the efficiency of engines and applies as well to living (irreversible) systems. The second law says that no machine is completely efficient.

No, that is the 3rd law of thermodynamics. Oddly enough, the author(s) actually define the 2nd law fairly accurately elsewhere. It is that total entropy (that of the system plus its environment) increases due to natural processes. Or, more simply, nature tends toward disorder.



Re: 3rd

the third law that describes absolute zero are not relevant here

Read the definition the author(s) gave above for the 2nd law. That is correct - there can be no 100% efficient heat engine.


The description of the 1st law as given by the author(s) is close enough.

edited because of formatting

That's a shame.

SideSteel has already come in with an explanation far more detailed and patient that I can ever be bothered with as usual, and was instantly hit with calorie not a calorie.

Actually SideSteel's contribution was discussing the study about a calorie is not a calorie, he was not "hit with" it - he entered the discussion on that very topic!

Yes they cover it in the paper and use that to attempt to declare that a calorie is not a calorie. They set up the strawman and then knock it down.

Regarding what other people say regarding calories, I do agree that the derp occurs on both sides of the calorie argument.

My point is they didn't 'create' the strawman to knock it down, they defined the strawman that people on this very thread subscribe to - and then knocked it down.

The study exists because of the misinformation bandied around and commonly believed!

Edited for typo

Is there a post in particular in this thread where someone is assuming that macronutrient composition is irrelevant and that the only factor that matters is the energy intake, regardless of energy output?

I'm asking because I didn't read every reply.

My point is they didn't 'create' the strawman to knock it down, they defined the strawman that people on this very thread subscribe to - and then knocked it down.

The study exists because of the misinformation bandied around and commonly believed!

Edited for typo

Is there a post in particular in this thread where someone is assuming that macronutrient composition is irrelevant and that the only factor that matters is the energy intake, regardless of energy output?

I'm asking because I didn't read every reply.

Just a few:

There ARE people where this isn't the case. Medical issues? Maybe! Other issues, perhaps. EITHER WAY, they (we) need support and motivation too.

You are not an exception to the second law of thermodynamics. That's what "law" means.

But, on a forum where people are always posting about no carb, low carb, less carb, more carb, all carb, you can expect that people will be looking for clarification, evidence, etc.

I have hypothyroid as well, and it DOESN'T make me a special snowflake. I still lose weight when in a calorie deficit. Macros have nothing to do with it - they are there to be adjusted as we see fit and according to our goals.

the simple part is - yes it really is - calories in vs calories out

the really hard part - calculating the caloric level at which you maintain and then figuring out how much to cut. I think that is something that we all struggle with …hell, I know I still do...

But people then take this to say well "calories in vs calories out does not work for me, so I went to low carb and now I am losing.." well no, you did not estimate your maintenance level or deficit correctly and going to low carb created a larger deficit, hence you started to lose again. It is still calories in vs calories out….

Even people with thyroid issues can lose weight via calorie deficit, they just have a harder time finding the right deficit level.

Oh look, another one of these threads about how OP defies the laws of thermodynamics. And then 20,000 people point it out, and 5 argue that OP is right.

She's swapped some of her calorie dense food that is incredibly easy to overeat if you don't weigh it or purchase it ready made and presume the nutritional value the store/takeaway gives you is 100% every time for calorie sparse vegetables that if you eyeball and eat an extra 50g will only amount to a negligable increase in calories.

Alternatively the OP is defying science.

My point is they didn't 'create' the strawman to knock it down, they defined the strawman that people on this very thread subscribe to - and then knocked it down.

The study exists because of the misinformation bandied around and commonly believed!

Edited for typo

Is there a post in particular in this thread where someone is assuming that macronutrient composition is irrelevant and that the only factor that matters is the energy intake, regardless of energy output?

I'm asking because I didn't read every reply.

Just a few:

There ARE people where this isn't the case. Medical issues? Maybe! Other issues, perhaps. EITHER WAY, they (we) need support and motivation too.

You are not an exception to the second law of thermodynamics. That's what "law" means.

But, on a forum where people are always posting about no carb, low carb, less carb, more carb, all carb, you can expect that people will be looking for clarification, evidence, etc.

I have hypothyroid as well, and it DOESN'T make me a special snowflake. I still lose weight when in a calorie deficit. Macros have nothing to do with it - they are there to be adjusted as we see fit and according to our goals.

the simple part is - yes it really is - calories in vs calories out

the really hard part - calculating the caloric level at which you maintain and then figuring out how much to cut. I think that is something that we all struggle with …hell, I know I still do...

But people then take this to say well "calories in vs calories out does not work for me, so I went to low carb and now I am losing.." well no, you did not estimate your maintenance level or deficit correctly and going to low carb created a larger deficit, hence you started to lose again. It is still calories in vs calories out….

Even people with thyroid issues can lose weight via calorie deficit, they just have a harder time finding the right deficit level.

Oh look, another one of these threads about how OP defies the laws of thermodynamics. And then 20,000 people point it out, and 5 argue that OP is right.

She's swapped some of her calorie dense food that is incredibly easy to overeat if you don't weigh it or purchase it ready made and presume the nutritional value the store/takeaway gives you is 100% every time for calorie sparse vegetables that if you eyeball and eat an extra 50g will only amount to a negligable increase in calories.

Alternatively the OP is defying science.

:laugh: Keep trying.

Is there a post in particular in this thread where someone is assuming that macronutrient composition is irrelevant and that the only factor that matters is the energy intake, regardless of energy output?

I'm asking because I didn't read every reply.

Just a few:

I resent having my quote included in this without adequate explanation as to what you are claiming is false about said quote.

I'm not sure which quote is yours, I didn't identify the quotes with specific posters. I was asked to point out where macronutrient composition is deemed irrelevant and all that matters is energy intake. This was clearly explained in the quoted portion at the top of the post.