Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 99

Thread: About simplistic calories in/calories out page

  1. #1
    avelin's Avatar
    avelin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Antipodes
    Posts
    150

    About simplistic calories in/calories out

    Shop Now
    I am pretty tired of hearing about calories in and calories out.

    A calorie is a unit of measurement dealing with the amount of energy needed to raise the amount of water one degree celsius. I can count petrol calories too. I guarantee that I can overconsume petrol calories and lose weight - and probably die. It's a silly way to look at a complex organism where even emotional states can affect hormone and metabolic functions.

    The BBC made a documentary a while ago asking 'Why aren't thin people fat?' It's not too long and simple to understand. Although it looks at weight gain rather than loss, it deals with the different ways that people handle food and you don't need to understand complex science. It just shows what happened without calling people liars.
    Last edited by avelin; 05-05-2011 at 05:12 PM. Reason: I was cross at the time of posting
    Evolutionary. Ideology that fits biology

  2. #2
    captaineight's Avatar
    captaineight is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    371
    What a complete load of nonsense. No doubt you'll soon get a chorus of supporters, keen to back-slap and re-enforce their own "easy way" delusions.

    I'm not claiming the metabolic transformation of calories-in vs. calories-out is simple. It's very complex. So complex in fact, that diet gurus can obfuscate the medical literature with nonsense that leads gullible folk to believe it doesn't even matter.

    It does matter and it is the most important factor in weight-loss by a million miles. That doesn't mean it's simple.

    Calories-in vs. calories-out has been proven in over 25 medically controlled metabolic ward studies dating back to 1935. That means studies in which participants are isolated in a medical environment and "force fed" a very strict amount of calories, made up of various macro-nutrient (carb/protein/fat) breakdown. No matter what macro-nutrient ratio, all participants always lose weight at a steady, predictable rate. Do you know how many times in all of those studies even a single participant failed to lose weight when the others did? None. Do you know how many times low-carb made a difference over high-carb? None. How many times someone failed to lose weight on a calorie deficit? None. How many times "metabolic advantage"/hormones/insulin-resistance/whatever raised it's ugly head and threw a spanner int he works? None. How may times one of the participants entered the study with a "screwed up metabolism" that made them lose weight slower than everyone else? None.

    To quote just a single one:

    It appears obvious than under conditions of precise consistency of caloric intake, and essentially constant physical activity, qualitative modification of the diet with respect to the amount or kind of fat, amount of carbohydrate, and amount of protein makes little or no difference in the rate of weight loss.
    "Calories do count" (paper detailing results of metabolic ward study, Kinsell et all 1963, Kinsell et all 1967)

    .
    Last edited by captaineight; 05-05-2011 at 05:12 PM.

  3. #3
    peril's Avatar
    peril is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Sydney, NSW
    Posts
    2,679
    @captaineight - this forum addresses healthy lifestyle, including weight management, based on Sisson's The Primal Blueprint. You refuse to read the book, and clearly don't believe its fundamental tenets. You serve no purpose here, either to yourself or to the people that are trying to make PB work for them as it has worked for many others

    @OP - of course there is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics so calories in - calories out is correct. But it is totally irrelevant because, as you say, our bodies are too complex to track calorie expenditure. This is evidenced by the fact of the body achieving homeostatisis despite variation in input and overt expenditure. The secret to wellbeing is understanding how we can restore our endocrine systems to healthy function. Good things follow
    Four years Primal with influences from Jaminet & Shanahan and a focus on being anti-inflammatory. Using Primal to treat CVD and prevent stents from blocking free of drugs.

    Eat creatures nose-to-tail (animal, fowl, fish, crustacea, molluscs), a large variety of vegetables (raw, cooked and fermented, including safe starches), dairy (cheese & yoghurt), occasional fruit, cocoa, turmeric & red wine

  4. #4
    camel's Avatar
    camel is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    330
    "participants are isolated in a medical environment and "force fed" a very strict amount of calories"

    Doesn't sound very realistic for people to actually do this though. I'd like to read the questionnaires of the participants as to who experienced the least hunger or dissatisfaction, or how their energy levels were. That is the sort of thing that makes a difference for people to succeed long term in the real world.

  5. #5
    captaineight's Avatar
    captaineight is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    371
    Quote Originally Posted by peril View Post
    @captaineight - this forum addresses healthy lifestyle, including weight management, based on Sisson's The Primal Blueprint. You refuse to read the book, and clearly don't believe its fundamental tenets. You serve no purpose here, either to yourself or to the people that are trying to make PB work for them as it has worked for many others
    So in other words this forum is a kind of church, only open to "true believers", there to re-enforce each-others delusions? Sorry if I've misunderstood, but it sounds like you're suggesting something along those lines...

    Anyway, does Sisson suggest anywhere that calories-in vs. calories-out do not matter, or is that just what some people infer from reading?

    It seems more people in this place are enamored with Taubes than Sisson, and Taubes is a quack.
    Last edited by captaineight; 05-05-2011 at 05:29 PM.

  6. #6
    captaineight's Avatar
    captaineight is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    371
    Quote Originally Posted by camel View Post
    "participants are isolated in a medical environment and "force fed" a very strict amount of calories"

    Doesn't sound very realistic for people to actually do this though. I'd like to read the questionnaires of the participants as to who experienced the least hunger or dissatisfaction, or how their energy levels were. That is the sort of thing that makes a difference for people to succeed long term in the real world.
    Obviously it does, and that's why a moderately-low-carb, paleolithic style diet can work wonders. But as far as pure calories-in vs. calories-out, and the predictable result in steady weight-loss goes, "hunger" and "satisfaction" are completely irrelevant.

    Of course, those things are totally relevant in the "real world" of dieting - absolutely critical even - and I'm the first person that will argue that. What I have a reaction against in pseudo-scientific, superficially convincing and authoritative-sounding distortion of science that leads people to believe calories don't matter, or that they can't lose weight on a calorie deficit because their "metabolism is screwed up" or something other such nonsense. Hunger and satiation can drive "calories-in", but there's no magic happening anywhere.

  7. #7
    avelin's Avatar
    avelin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Antipodes
    Posts
    150
    I've edited my previous post.

    Unless each of us is able to precisely calculate at any given time the precise number of calories that we require, it can be extremely difficult and at times useless to attempt to lose body fat while retaining muscle using the calories in and calories out model. I am not saying that this is false, but that is is overly simplistic. Calories in and calories out can only work effectively with a fully functioning and healthy metabolism in which all variables are known. This is, in part, why the laws of physics can be set up to work in laboratories but are notoriously fallible when it comes to human beings.

    Be that as it may, to assume that a simple calories in/calories out model does not work because an individual is being untruthful or careless is both insulting and uncharitable. It was this apparent attitude to which I objected.
    Evolutionary. Ideology that fits biology

  8. #8
    CoyoteVick's Avatar
    CoyoteVick is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Dayton OH
    Posts
    488
    Quote Originally Posted by captaineight View Post
    So in other words this forum is a kind of church, only open to "true believers", there to re-enforce each-others delusions? Sorry if I've misunderstood, but it sounds like you're suggesting something along those lines...

    Anyway, does Sisson suggest anywhere that calories-in vs. calories-out do not matter, or is that just what some people infer from reading?

    It seems more people in this place are enamored with Taubes than Sisson, and Taubes is a quack.

    well, you would know what he said if you read the book, wouldn't you?

  9. #9
    camel's Avatar
    camel is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by captaineight View Post
    Obviously it does, and that's why a moderately-low-carb, paleolithic style diet can work wonders. But as far as pure calories-in vs. calories-out, and the predictable result in steady weight-loss goes, "hunger" and "satisfaction" are completely irrelevant.

    Of course, those things are totally relevant in the "real world" of dieting - absolutely critical even - and I'm the first person that will argue that. What I have a reaction against in pseudo-scientific, superficially convincing and authoritative-sounding distortion of science that leads people to believe calories don't matter,
    I agree with you up to this point

    Quote Originally Posted by captaineight View Post
    or that they can't lose weight on a calorie deficit because their "metabolism is screwed up" or something other such nonsense. Hunger and satiation can drive "calories-in", but there's no magic happening anywhere.
    I do however think that our bodies have complex mechanisms in place that gives a lot of leeway in the equation. There are parameters that it can manipulate. I think of riding a bike up a steep hill -- if you get stuck in the wrong gear you're going to have a way tougher time than the guy beside you whose bike is working properly. I do believe that energy wasting is possible, and that we have more to discover about how our bodies work that will eventually shed light on what seems like "magic" now.

  10. #10
    MalPaz's Avatar
    MalPaz is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    2,790
    calories are a number...the body is not an accurate calculator...it will misfunction when it is dificient in what it wants and when the expected emotional state is not where the hypothalamus would like it. 99% of studies are bogus. prolly 50% of dietary changes you make will not have an effect on your fat tissue, the other 50% will....you live you learn. if you try and follow someone elses advice/diet/macros/calories you will never lose weight.

    LEARN YOUR OWN BODY

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •