Page 10 of 44 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 440

Thread: "Calories in / Calories Out" -- Please Stop the Madness page 10

  1. #91
    KimchiNinja's Avatar
    KimchiNinja is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Seoul
    Posts
    1,253
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumifer View Post
    Guess you never heard of the law of the conservation of energy.
    Well, from reading all the posts it sounds like the majority of people even on a paleo forum, still believe that it's "calories in - calories out" driving fat accumulation. That's interesting and it does surprise me. Also given 8pgs in a day it seems like it gets people worked up, especially if they feel their "science" has been violated.

    If fat is NOT directly caused by [energy in] > [energy out] that does NOT necessarily violate the laws of nature, by the way. For example:

    [Ei] - [Eo] = [WC (M+F)]

    Ei - energy in
    Eo = energy out
    WC = weight change
    M = muscle change
    F = fat change

    [WC (M+F down)] = [Ei] - [Eo up]
    ^ In this explanation fat mass decreases due to less insulin secretion, energy in turn increases; which people experience in a ketogenic state. Fat loss occurs even though calories have not decreased.

    [WC (M+F up)] = [Ei] - [Eo down]
    ^ Explained as fat going up (because you're eating twinkies and coke all day) and in turn you're energy out goes down. You feel more sedentary because even though you are eating the same energy your body is grabbing the first 10% and sending to fat storage, therefore your energy must decrease. The body is prioritizing in this example.

    [WC (M+F down)] = [Ei down] - [Eo]
    ^ A formula that represents a common theory -- that people lose weight eating "atkins" because the food fills them up and they eat less. But think of it reversed; fat is decreasing while eating this way, and that is driving the urge to eat less, the eating less is not driving the fat loss.

    [WC (M up+F down)] = [Ei up] - [Eo up]
    ^ Calories actually increase (from fat and protein) yet fat loss occurs due to less processed carbs, which releases energy (Eo), plus more release of energy from the gym, and muscle increases. Weight stays neutral. I've experienced this, while the laws of nature are preserved it is false to say I increased exercise while decreasing calories.

    [Ei down] - [Eo down] = [WC (M+F) no/small change]
    ^ What many people experience on calorie restriction, reducing food reduces energy. In turn no change to weight, or small short-term change to weight, followed by becoming fatter. We know starving rats doesn't necessarily make them thin, you can reduce Ei and they will remain fat. We know starving/malnourished people aren't necessarily thin either, which would seem to disprove decreasing Ei must decrease fat mass.

    So there are many of possible explanations to explore, beyond the classic "eat less exercise more" (which hasn't worked). The original formula is too simplistic and says nothing at all. But if your mind is not locked into "the world must be flat" you are going to ignore everything nature is telling you to the contrary.
    Last edited by KimchiNinja; 04-03-2013 at 02:01 PM.

  2. #92
    JoanieL's Avatar
    JoanieL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.
    Posts
    7,032
    Quote Originally Posted by noodletoy View Post
    honestly? i think it's funny as hell watching him get wound up. like a terrier with gum stuck on its back. can't quite get it, but it's driving him krazee.
    lmao - a perfect description.
    "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

    B*tch-lite

  3. #93
    little vase's Avatar
    little vase is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    667
    There are so many adorbs little cliques here on MDA that I can't keep them all straight.

  4. #94
    Lumifer's Avatar
    Lumifer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by KimchiNinja View Post
    Well, from reading all the posts it sounds like the majority of people even on a paleo forum, still believe that it's "calories in - calories out" driving fat accumulation. ... If fat is NOT directly caused by [energy in] > [energy out] that does NOT necessarily violate the laws of nature, by the way.
    Memory problems, already?

    Let me remind you of what you actually posted, with some emphasis for ease of reading comprehension:

    Quote Originally Posted by KimchiNinja View Post
    lower your carbs to 50g and you lose weight no matter your calorie intake or calorie expenditure.

  5. #95
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    3,588
    Quote Originally Posted by KimchiNinja View Post
    Well, from reading all the posts it sounds like the majority of people even on a paleo forum, still believe that it's "calories in - calories out" driving fat accumulation. That's interesting and it does surprise me. Also given 8pgs in a day it seems like it gets people worked up, especially if they feel their "science" has been violated.

    If fat is NOT directly caused by [energy in] > [energy out] that does NOT necessarily violate the laws of nature, by the way. For example:

    [Ei] - [Eo] = [WC (M+F)]

    Ei - energy in
    Eo = energy out
    WC = weight change
    M = muscle change
    F = fat change

    [WC (M+F down)] = [Ei] - [Eo up]
    ^ In this explanation fat mass decreases due to less insulin secretion, energy in turn increases; which people experience in a ketogenic state. Fat loss occurs even though calories have not decreased.

    [WC (M+F up)] = [Ei] - [Eo down]
    ^ Explained as fat going up (because you're eating twinkies and coke all day) and in turn you're energy out goes down. You feel more sedentary because even though you are eating the same energy your body is grabbing the first 10% and sending to fat storage, therefore your energy must decrease. The body is prioritizing in this example.

    [WC (M+F down)] = [Ei down] - [Eo]
    ^ A formula that represents a common theory -- that people lose weight eating "atkins" because the food fills them up and they eat less. But think of it reversed; fat is decreasing while eating this way, and that is driving the urge to eat less, the eating less is not driving the fat loss.

    [WC (M up+F down)] = [Ei up] - [Eo up]
    ^ Calories actually increase (from fat and protein) yet fat loss occurs due to less processed carbs, which releases energy (Eo), plus more release of energy from the gym, and muscle increases. Weight stays neutral. I've experienced this, while the laws of nature are preserved it is false to say I increased exercise while decreasing calories.

    [Ei down] - [Eo down] = [WC (M+F) no/small change]
    ^ What many people experience on calorie restriction, reducing food reduces energy. In turn no change to weight, or small short-term change to weight, followed by becoming fatter. We know starving rats doesn't necessarily make them thin, you can reduce Ei and they will remain fat. We know starving/malnourished people aren't necessarily thin either, which would seem to disprove decreasing Ei must decrease fat mass.

    So there are many of possible explanations to explore, beyond the classic "eat less exercise more" (which hasn't worked). The original formula is too simplistic and says nothing at all. But if your mind is not locked into "the world must be flat" you are going to ignore everything nature is telling you to the contrary.
    Holy Grok!!! This must be the most bizarre thing that I have ever read on this forum since some other poster insisted that she gained weight in a calorie deficit!

  6. #96
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,390
    Quote Originally Posted by KimchiNinja View Post
    Well, from reading all the posts it sounds like the majority of people even on a paleo forum, still believe that it's "calories in - calories out" driving fat accumulation. That's interesting and it does surprise me. Also given 8pgs in a day it seems like it gets people worked up, especially if they feel their "science" has been violated.

    If fat is NOT directly caused by [energy in] > [energy out] that does NOT necessarily violate the laws of nature, by the way. For example:

    [Ei] - [Eo] = [WC (M+F)]

    Ei - energy in
    Eo = energy out
    WC = weight change
    M = muscle change
    F = fat change

    [WC (M+F down)] = [Ei] - [Eo up]
    ^ In this explanation fat mass decreases due to less insulin secretion, energy in turn increases; which people experience in a ketogenic state. Fat loss occurs even though calories have not decreased.

    [WC (M+F up)] = [Ei] - [Eo down]
    ^ Explained as fat going up (because you're eating twinkies and coke all day) and in turn you're energy out goes down. You feel more sedentary because even though you are eating the same energy your body is grabbing the first 10% and sending to fat storage, therefore your energy must decrease. The body is prioritizing in this example.

    [WC (M+F down)] = [Ei down] - [Eo]
    ^ A formula that represents a common theory -- that people lose weight eating "atkins" because the food fills them up and they eat less. But think of it reversed; fat is decreasing while eating this way, and that is driving the urge to eat less, the eating less is not driving the fat loss.

    [WC (M up+F down)] = [Ei up] - [Eo up]
    ^ Calories actually increase (from fat and protein) yet fat loss occurs due to less processed carbs, which releases energy (Eo), plus more release of energy from the gym, and muscle increases. Weight stays neutral. I've experienced this, while the laws of nature are preserved it is false to say I increased exercise while decreasing calories.

    [Ei down] - [Eo down] = [WC (M+F) no/small change]
    ^ What many people experience on calorie restriction, reducing food reduces energy. In turn no change to weight, or small short-term change to weight, followed by becoming fatter. We know starving rats doesn't necessarily make them thin, you can reduce Ei and they will remain fat. We know starving/malnourished people aren't necessarily thin either, which would seem to disprove decreasing Ei must decrease fat mass.

    So there are many of possible explanations to explore, beyond the classic "eat less exercise more" (which hasn't worked). The original formula is too simplistic and says nothing at all. But if your mind is not locked into "the world must be flat" you are going to ignore everything nature is telling you to the contrary.
    Anyone with a brain is going to see you're talking out of your ass here.

    Longing is the agony of the nearness of the distant

  7. #97
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,056
    Quote Originally Posted by little vase View Post
    There are so many adorbs little cliques here on MDA that I can't keep them all straight.
    What does someone have to do to get in a clique around here?

    Or are you automatically 'bonded' to a person once you agree with them in a thread?
    Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

    Griff's cholesterol primer
    5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
    Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
    TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
    bloodorchid is always right

  8. #98
    Gladmorning's Avatar
    Gladmorning is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by magicmerl View Post
    What does someone have to do to get in a clique around here?

    Or are you automatically 'bonded' to a person once you agree with them in a thread?
    Pretty sure that's how it goes. It's funny to watch the heartbreak and betrayal when they disagree in the next pointless thread.
    The process is simple: Free your mind, and your ass will follow.

  9. #99
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,390
    Some of us are bros for life(Zach and myself)
    Longing is the agony of the nearness of the distant

  10. #100
    Gladmorning's Avatar
    Gladmorning is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by Derpamix View Post
    Some of us are bros for life(Zach and myself)
    Wait, I thought ya'll were the same person XD
    The process is simple: Free your mind, and your ass will follow.

Page 10 of 44 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... 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
  •