It is safe to say that calories in/calories out is a useless and discredited way of explaining body weight. It neglects the chemistry of fat storage, which according to GCBG, WWGF, and much known research, really depends (for the most part) on insulin, the fat storage hormone. It's not that simple, but that's the main driver.

Taubes made one example in WWGF of animals that store energy for the winter. It's not like they eat like crazy before the winter. Hormones are key. If nature worked on calories in/calories out, animals and humans would pretty much have to eat every day, at a steady rate, and there would be no way to explain hibernation or survival in times of scarcity.

i was thinking today that this concept needs to be replaced. Has it been replaced already? If not, what should take its place?

If one wanted to have a way of calculating what weight is going to be based on what one eats and how much activity they do, it would also need to take into account the chemistry of what they eat, and hormonal/metabolic status of the individual. It seems to get complicated pretty quick.

What to do?

In engineering, when engineers want to accurately predict the outcome of something and theory doesn't line up exactly, no problem. Things get reduced as much as possible and then we have fudge factors, called coefficients. Coefficients are usually determined by experiment, and can be just one number, or a complicated table of numbers to help one get the right answer. Anyone who has taken a thermo class would know that I'm talking about!

If you assume someone's metabolism is 90% of nominal for example, you are using a coefficient of .9.

Any thoughts?

Taubes made one example in WWGF of animals that store energy for the winter. It's not like they eat like crazy before the winter. Hormones are key. If nature worked on calories in/calories out, animals and humans would pretty much have to eat every day, at a steady rate, and there would be no way to explain hibernation or survival in times of scarcity.

i was thinking today that this concept needs to be replaced. Has it been replaced already? If not, what should take its place?

If one wanted to have a way of calculating what weight is going to be based on what one eats and how much activity they do, it would also need to take into account the chemistry of what they eat, and hormonal/metabolic status of the individual. It seems to get complicated pretty quick.

What to do?

In engineering, when engineers want to accurately predict the outcome of something and theory doesn't line up exactly, no problem. Things get reduced as much as possible and then we have fudge factors, called coefficients. Coefficients are usually determined by experiment, and can be just one number, or a complicated table of numbers to help one get the right answer. Anyone who has taken a thermo class would know that I'm talking about!

If you assume someone's metabolism is 90% of nominal for example, you are using a coefficient of .9.

Any thoughts?

## Comment