Page 1 of 32 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 440

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

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    International Citizen
    Posts
    2,265

    "Calories in / Calories Out" -- Please Stop the Madness

    A request of my fellow meat and vegi eating buddies:

    Please, stop saying "calories in / calories out" as if it were some smart thing to say.

    I thought this was a paleo forum and we all knew it was white-carbs driving fat accumulation; lower your carbs to 50g and you lose weight no matter your calorie intake or calorie expenditure.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by KimchiNinja View Post
    ...lower your carbs to 50g and you lose weight no matter your calorie intake or calorie expenditure.
    LOL. Your dislike of science shows :-) Guess you never heard of the law of the conservation of energy :-D

    It's not hard at all to gain weight while eating <50g carbs / day.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    International Citizen
    Posts
    2,265
    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.

  4. #4
    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. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    5,613
    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. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,196
    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.

    Make America Great Again

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    International Citizen
    Posts
    2,265
    Repost below for relevance.

    Oh dear, well I made it thru pg15 of this "discussion forum" thread and had to stop, because after 15pgs of "discussion", there were only three intelligent posts discussing the topic...and one of them was mine.

    The problem with the "eat less, exercise more" folk wisdom, aside from the fact that it doesn't work and doesn't explain many observations, is that it a lazy way to dismiss all other possibilities. Well the ocean exists cause a lot of water is in it. Okay how did the water get there? Oh shut up KimchiNinja, we don't like to think about that.

    Below I disaggregated the calories in / calories out formula. If the original formula holds, then the disaggregation also necessarily holds. The disaggregation makes it much more complex, you change one variable and one or more other variables must change. But it's not obvious which are changing, and probably not the ones people would think (if you believe people think)...

    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 (update: we could split this into base rate and exercise)
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,203
    Quote Originally Posted by KimchiNinja View Post
    Repost below for relevance.

    Oh dear, well I made it thru pg15 of this "discussion forum" thread and had to stop, because after 15pgs of "discussion", there were only three intelligent posts discussing the topic...and one of them was mine.
    Perhaps there's an element of confirmation bias in your evaluation of posts?

    Quote Originally Posted by KimchiNinja View Post
    The problem with the "eat less, exercise more" folk wisdom, aside from the fact that it doesn't work and doesn't explain many observations, is that it a lazy way to dismiss all other possibilities. Well the ocean exists cause a lot of water is in it. Okay how did the water get there? Oh shut up KimchiNinja, we don't like to think about that.
    I agree. I think that health and weight loss are linked in that they both depend on hormonal balance.

    Quote Originally Posted by KimchiNinja View Post
    Below I disaggregated the calories in / calories out formula. If the original formula holds, then the disaggregation also necessarily holds.
    Yeah, no. Your qualitative descriptions are for the most part wrong.

    I think that the person who pointed out that CICO was true but meaningless for people seeking health / weight loss had it correct.
    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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    International Citizen
    Posts
    2,265
    Quote Originally Posted by magicmerl View Post
    Yeah, no. Your qualitative descriptions are for the most part wrong.

    I think that the person who pointed out that CICO was true but meaningless for people seeking health / weight loss had it correct.
    And so 1) specifically how are my qualitative decriptions wrong, and 2) if CICO is meaningless, which it is, then what is the meaningful formula?

    I'm guessing you have no idea to both 1 and 2.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumifer View Post
    LOL. Your dislike of science shows :-) Guess you never heard of the law of the conservation of energy :-D

    It's not hard at all to gain weight while eating <50g carbs / day.

    Agreed!!!!! I've been eating less than 50 grams of carbs with plenty of fat for over a year. If I don't count calories then I do gain serious amounts of weight!!!!

Posting Permissions

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