Anyone lost a lot of weight, and kept it off?

A light bike doesn't replace good fitness.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
joejack951
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 6:50 pm
Location: Wilmington, DE

by joejack951

Shrike wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:10 pm
@joe, some people do seem to have a sort of fixed weight that they have to work hard to move from and for some people that weight is pretty low it seems.
I'm still not convinced. Show me a real world example of someone who accurately tracks their calories in/out where that data doesn't support their weight. I've read studies about people trying to lose weight who claimed they had some sort of thyroid issue preventing them from losing weight as they'd been on several different diets without success. The study found that the issue was they simply neglected to account for all of their calories consumed and exaggerated their activity levels. Again, all of the really skinny people I know either eat like birds, are highly active, or both.

That said, as is also being discussed, skinny doesn't mean healthy. You can eat like crap and have a shit lifestyle and be thin. Being fat from doing those same things would only be worse, though!

queloque67
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:25 am

by queloque67

joejack951 wrote:
Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:45 pm
Shrike wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:10 pm
@joe, some people do seem to have a sort of fixed weight that they have to work hard to move from and for some people that weight is pretty low it seems.
I'm still not convinced. Show me a real world example of someone who accurately tracks their calories in/out where that data doesn't support their weight. I've read studies about people trying to lose weight who claimed they had some sort of thyroid issue preventing them from losing weight as they'd been on several different diets without success. The study found that the issue was they simply neglected to account for all of their calories consumed and exaggerated their activity levels. Again, all of the really skinny people I know either eat like birds, are highly active, or both.

That said, as is also being discussed, skinny doesn't mean healthy. You can eat like crap and have a shit lifestyle and be thin. Being fat from doing those same things would only be worse, though!
agreed...... In 1985 only 14% of Americans were overweight and obese. Now 75%. I bet half of them will blame everything but their eating and fitness. There are a couple of people at my job who blame Thyroid and they aren't even obese just a bit overweight.....but I see how they eat at work and can only imagine how they eat at home and they will swear to you they don't eat a lot. We rarely count hidden calories or calories that are easily hidden in food such as oils and sweeteners and the dressings and sauces put on our food. We think we burn more more energy than we really do. I went to the hospital and had my resting metabolic rate measured that cost $75 where you blow into this machine that measures oxygen you breath in and carbon dioxide you blow out for about 20 minutes.......my body burns 1899 calories if I do nothing all day. I eat around those numbers always.

by Weenie


bilwit
Posts: 984
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:49 am
Location: Seattle, WA

by bilwit

joejack951 wrote:
Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:45 pm
Shrike wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:10 pm
@joe, some people do seem to have a sort of fixed weight that they have to work hard to move from and for some people that weight is pretty low it seems.
I'm still not convinced. Show me a real world example of someone who accurately tracks their calories in/out where that data doesn't support their weight. I've read studies about people trying to lose weight who claimed they had some sort of thyroid issue preventing them from losing weight as they'd been on several different diets without success. The study found that the issue was they simply neglected to account for all of their calories consumed and exaggerated their activity levels. Again, all of the really skinny people I know either eat like birds, are highly active, or both.

That said, as is also being discussed, skinny doesn't mean healthy. You can eat like crap and have a shit lifestyle and be thin. Being fat from doing those same things would only be worse, though!
Fitness+weight is always an interesting discussion, I've read that even excersize only accounts for ~10% of calories burned, so it's not really a weight-loss priority when compared to diet (although obviously the fitness benefits of excersize is another consideration especially for cycling--you can be as light as you want but it doesn't count for much on the bike if you can only push 150 watts an hour).

I've always been around 60 to 64kgs @ 180cms without ever seriously tracking calories -- I even changed my diet to cut out meat almost entirely this past year and maintained the same weight. Meanwhile, I have a friend that's over 100kgs who tried cycling for a while, he got pretty fit but never really lost any weight (neglected to change diet at all and perhaps consumed more to "compensate") which I think discouraged him so much that he quit cycling.. I don't know if the compulsion to eat a certain amount (appetite) is part hereditary or just something habitual you develop throughout your life but I do tend to believe that people (perhaps subconsciously) gravitate towards whatever their body thinks is their "natural" weight, which can be high or low based on those same genetics or developed habits
Last edited by bilwit on Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

queloque67
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:25 am

by queloque67

bilwit wrote:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:12 am
joejack951 wrote:
Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:45 pm
Shrike wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:10 pm
@joe, some people do seem to have a sort of fixed weight that they have to work hard to move from and for some people that weight is pretty low it seems.
I'm still not convinced. Show me a real world example of someone who accurately tracks their calories in/out where that data doesn't support their weight. I've read studies about people trying to lose weight who claimed they had some sort of thyroid issue preventing them from losing weight as they'd been on several different diets without success. The study found that the issue was they simply neglected to account for all of their calories consumed and exaggerated their activity levels. Again, all of the really skinny people I know either eat like birds, are highly active, or both.

That said, as is also being discussed, skinny doesn't mean healthy. You can eat like crap and have a shit lifestyle and be thin. Being fat from doing those same things would only be worse, though!
Fitness+weight is always an interesting discussion, I've read that even excersize only accounts for ~10% of calories burned, so it's not really a weight-loss priority when compared to diet (although obviously the fitness benefits of excersize is another consideration especially for cycling--you can be as light as you want but it doesn't count for much on the bike if you can only push 150 watts an hour).

I've always been around 60 to 64kgs @ 180cms without ever seriously tracking calories -- I even changed my diet to cut out meat almost entirely this past year and maintained the same weight. Meanwhile, I have a friend thats over 100kgs who tried cycling for a while, he got pretty fit but never really lost any weight (neglected to change diet at all and perhaps consumed more to "compensate") which I think discouraged him so much that he quit cycling.. I don't know if the compulsion to eat a certain amount (appetitie) is part hereditary or just something habitual you develop throughout your life but I do tend to believe that people (perhaps subconsciously) gravitate towards whatever their body thinks is their "natural" weight, which can be high or low based on those same genetics or developed habits
In countries where food is super cheap and always abundant its hard to measure what is "natural" or "natural weight". We are just seeing what food can do to a body when food is limitless. In rich countries, poor people tend to be obese. In poor countries people tend to be very skinny. i think we are seeing weights in a society where most food is unatural and artificially made and super super cheap. 99 cent burgers still exist for over 40 years. lol You can get 2 large pizzas for under $10. And 1/2 chicken meals for 3.00. Most people don't eat just basic whole foods most of the time so its hard to know what really is natural for different body types. When we did, obesity was rare and being over weight you actually stood out in the crowd. When I was in school, there was usually only 1 fat kid in class. Today its the majority of the class.

joejack951
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 6:50 pm
Location: Wilmington, DE

by joejack951

bilwit wrote:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:12 am
Fitness+weight is always an interesting discussion, I've read that even excersize only accounts for ~10% of calories burned, so it's not really a weight-loss priority when compared to diet
How much exercise contributes will be entirely up to the person exercising. There are days when I am inactive or only do a bit of exercise and sure, it might be only that 10% of my calories 'out' that day are 'active' calories. On other days, I'm exercising intensely for multiple hours and then it might be a 50/50 split between resting/active calories, or even more skewed toward the latter. I've lost considerable weight a few times in my life and there's no way I could have done it without exercising. Consider how next to impossible it would be to create a 1000 calorie deficit simply by eating less. Yet that is a totally reasonable number if incorporating ~2 hours of exercise in a day.
bilwit wrote:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:12 am
I've always been around 60 to 64kgs @ 180cms without ever seriously tracking calories -- I even changed my diet to cut out meat almost entirely this past year and maintained the same weight. Meanwhile, I have a friend that's over 100kgs who tried cycling for a while, he got pretty fit but never really lost any weight (neglected to change diet at all and perhaps consumed more to "compensate") which I think discouraged him so much that he quit cycling.. I don't know if the compulsion to eat a certain amount (appetite) is part hereditary or just something habitual you develop throughout your life but I do tend to believe that people (perhaps subconsciously) gravitate towards whatever their body thinks is their "natural" weight, which can be high or low based on those same genetics or developed habits
As another poster responded, we live in a world with easy access to food. I am fairly confident in saying that any of us on this board can easily afford to eat enough food to get seriously overweight. As such, our 'natural' weights are heavily predisposed toward being on the high side. Especially for those like myself who enjoy eating. Perhaps you just enjoy eating less than your friend and/or developed better eating habits than him over the years. I don't buy the genetics thing. I hear that a lot from fat family members. I see it as an easy excuse to be lazy and not try to lose weight.

If someone is exercising a lot and not losing weight, they are compensating by eating enough to offset those calories. It isn't an impossible thing to do. After all, we all reach that state at some point.

FWIW, I have tracked calories for one day of my life out of curiosity. If I am actively trying to lose or maintain a certain weight I just watch the scale over time.

Shrike
Posts: 1403
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 5:08 pm

by Shrike

Body weight set point.

That's what they're calling it. That's what I was referring to earlier when I said fixed weight. Read about it on popsci a week or so before starting this thread. Worth looking up, there is some evidence for it and studies looking at whether a western diet masks it.

User avatar
853guy
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:48 pm

by 853guy

joejack951 wrote:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:41 pm
As another poster responded, we live in a world with easy access to food. I am fairly confident in saying that any of us on this board can easily afford to eat enough food to get seriously overweight. As such, our 'natural' weights are heavily predisposed toward being on the high side. Especially for those like myself who enjoy eating. Perhaps you just enjoy eating less than your friend and/or developed better eating habits than him over the years. I don't buy the genetics thing. I hear that a lot from fat family members. I see it as an easy excuse to be lazy and not try to lose weight.

If someone is exercising a lot and not losing weight, they are compensating by eating enough to offset those calories. It isn't an impossible thing to do. After all, we all reach that state at some point.
Again, I’m not sure it’s that simple. While the genetic makeup of each individual will differ, and there’s certainly no evidence thus far of a “fat gene”, food - or more specifically, its macro-nutrients - does affect the blood brain barrier and, in regard to the typical “Western diet” (SFAs and simple sugars) can lead to BBB impairment and therefore, obesity, diabetes, dementia and Alzheimer’s.

Like drug and alcohol use, (and/or pharmacological drugs) once the blood brain barrier is impaired, the potential for “rewiring” the brain to rely solely on external stimulus for “normal” hormonal regulation means that if an individual’s diet has compromised the integrity of the BBB it may in fact be difficult to reverse, even in cases in which the individual makes appropriate changes.

That’s not to absolve individuals of responsibility for their choices, but to suggest that there will be cases in which consumption of SFAs and simple sugars - especially if consumed during (early) childhood and maturation into adulthood - will lead to long-term neurobiological damage that may prove exceedingly stubborn to change.

There are habits of repetition (external stimulus), and habits of biophysiological adaptation (internal stimulus), and sometimes the two are intrinsically linked.

So the issue becomes not one of calories in, calories out, but at what stage of development those calories are consumed, and the macronutrient composition and its effects on later development/change.

We also have to accept that initial weight loss is easy. Like muscle gains, it’s very easy to see results quickly. However, as the body adapts, results will taper off, plateau will occur, and the final percentage of loss/gains will come very slowly. A person who has 30kg to lose might likely drop the greatest percentage rapidly via a caloric deficit and aerobic exercise - the rest may take years, and will need to come from a shift toward anaerobic (building/maintaining lean muscle mass) that will not come from calories in/calories out alone. That is, the stage of weight loss needs to be factored in, as does the type of exercise being done. Some of us are at the beginning stages, some the latter.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4023063/
Shrike wrote:Body weight set point.

That's what they're calling it. That's what I was referring to earlier when I said fixed weight. Read about it on popsci a week or so before starting this thread. Worth looking up, there is some evidence for it and studies looking at whether a western diet masks it.
Interesting. Thanks.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2990627/

Best,

853guy

dim
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:25 am
Location: Cambridge UK

by dim

2 and a half years ago, I started cycling and I weighed 104 kg .... my 1st ride was 3km and after that, I struggled to breathe

2 1/2 years later, I've lost 30 kg (66 pounds) and now weigh 74 Kg .... I'm actually pretty fit for my age . I still eat crap food, smoke way too much and love a few beers every night.

in 2017, I cycled 14,449.0 km with an elevation of 80,128 meters.... this year will be substantially more, as I am now training for long Audax rides. I would still like to loose another 10 Kg
Giant TCR
Canyon Endurace AL
Specialized Allez Sport

1415chris
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:59 am
Location: Surrey UK

by 1415chris

Maybe I should start smoking, I'm already OK with the beer :)

joejack951
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 6:50 pm
Location: Wilmington, DE

by joejack951

853guy wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:09 pm
Again, I’m not sure it’s that simple. While the genetic makeup of each individual will differ, and there’s certainly no evidence thus far of a “fat gene”, food - or more specifically, its macro-nutrients - does affect the blood brain barrier and, in regard to the typical “Western diet” (SFAs and simple sugars) can lead to BBB impairment and therefore, obesity, diabetes, dementia and Alzheimer’s.
Having 'Western diet' foods available only causes obesity because people eat it. They don't need to eat it but it takes good, it's readily available, and is generally cheap. That's hardly comparable to diabetes, dementia, and Alzheimer's. Of course, those diseases are totally irrelevant to our discussion, or so I thought.
853guy wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:09 pm
Like drug and alcohol use, (and/or pharmacological drugs) once the blood brain barrier is impaired, the potential for “rewiring” the brain to rely solely on external stimulus for “normal” hormonal regulation means that if an individual’s diet has compromised the integrity of the BBB it may in fact be difficult to reverse, even in cases in which the individual makes appropriate changes.

That’s not to absolve individuals of responsibility for their choices, but to suggest that there will be cases in which consumption of SFAs and simple sugars - especially if consumed during (early) childhood and maturation into adulthood - will lead to long-term neurobiological damage that may prove exceedingly stubborn to change.

There are habits of repetition (external stimulus), and habits of biophysiological adaptation (internal stimulus), and sometimes the two are intrinsically linked.
I'm not even going to try and comment on any of that :D
853guy wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:09 pm
So the issue becomes not one of calories in, calories out, but at what stage of development those calories are consumed, and the macronutrient composition and its effects on later development/change.

We also have to accept that initial weight loss is easy. Like muscle gains, it’s very easy to see results quickly. However, as the body adapts, results will taper off, plateau will occur, and the final percentage of loss/gains will come very slowly. A person who has 30kg to lose might likely drop the greatest percentage rapidly via a caloric deficit and aerobic exercise - the rest may take years, and will need to come from a shift toward anaerobic (building/maintaining lean muscle mass) that will not come from calories in/calories out alone. That is, the stage of weight loss needs to be factored in, as does the type of exercise being done. Some of us are at the beginning stages, some the latter.
Why do you think losing additional weight must be done by a 'shift toward anaerobic (building/maintaining lean muscle mass)? You say it as if it's a fact and also keep repeating that it's not just 'calories in/calories out.' Nothing I have ever read refutes calories in/calories out. It is probably the only hard and fast diet rule there is. Building muscle mass does increase one's metabolic rate but that's simply more calories out even at rest. But the fact remains that the leaner you get, the fewer 'free' calories out you get. So losing weight becomes tougher.
853guy wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:09 pm
Shrike wrote:Body weight set point.

That's what they're calling it. That's what I was referring to earlier when I said fixed weight. Read about it on popsci a week or so before starting this thread. Worth looking up, there is some evidence for it and studies looking at whether a western diet masks it.
Interesting. Thanks.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2990627/
From the article: " This theory proposes a proportional feedback control system designed to regulate body weight to a constant ‘body-inherent’ weight, namely the set point weight [1]. The system, according to this theory, adjusts food intake or energy expenditure (or both) in proportion to the difference between the current body weight and the set point weight."

Food intake: calories in
Energy expenditure: calories out

They aren't arguing this basic fact only that it seems people gravitate toward a certain weight depending on the food around them. Makes sense to me. Doesn't refute any of what I've said either.

queloque67
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:25 am

by queloque67

853guy wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:09 pm
Shrike wrote:Body weight set point.

That's what they're calling it. That's what I was referring to earlier when I said fixed weight. Read about it on popsci a week or so before starting this thread. Worth looking up, there is some evidence for it and studies looking at whether a western diet masks it.
Interesting. Thanks.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2990627/
joejack951 wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:12 pm
From the article: " This theory proposes a proportional feedback control system designed to regulate body weight to a constant ‘body-inherent’ weight, namely the set point weight [1]. The system, according to this theory, adjusts food intake or energy expenditure (or both) in proportion to the difference between the current body weight and the set point weight."

Food intake: calories in
Energy expenditure: calories out

They aren't arguing this basic fact only that it seems people gravitate toward a certain weight depending on the food around them. Makes sense to me. Doesn't refute any of what I've said either.
I think what the general public mistakes about the calorie in vs calorie out is people have this presumption that if they eat a 99 cent bag of chips that is about 1500 calories, they just need to do a 4 hour bike ride that burns 1500 calories and they are good. Many people literally believe they are burning those 1500 calories from the chips they ate. its not a 1 to 1 relationship which a lot of people believe what calorie in/calorie out means.

So at a basic level, yes, rules of thermodynamics apply, but technically the body handles a fat calorie different from a carb calorie or a protein calorie depending on what state your body is in...i.e. just waking up in the morning and eating, or right after cardio or right after weight lifting or right after muscle glygogen levels are depleted or liver glycogen are depleted or brain glucose are depleted. It all depends on what state the body is in when consuming dietary calories during a point in time because the body prioritizes the need of nutrients or energy sources based on your biological demand and need.

joejack951
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 6:50 pm
Location: Wilmington, DE

by joejack951

queloque67 wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 8:18 pm
I think what the general public mistakes about the calorie in vs calorie out is people have this presumption that if they eat a 99 cent bag of chips that is about 1500 calories, they just need to do a 4 hour bike ride that burns 1500 calories and they are good. Many people literally believe they are burning those 1500 calories from the chips they ate. its not a 1 to 1 relationship which a lot of people believe what calorie in/calorie out means.

So at a basic level, yes, rules of thermodynamics apply, but technically the body handles a fat calorie different from a carb calorie or a protein calorie depending on what state your body is in...i.e. just waking up in the morning and eating, or right after cardio or right after weight lifting or right after muscle glygogen levels are depleted or liver glycogen are depleted or brain glucose are depleted. It all depends on what state the body is in when consuming dietary calories during a point in time because the body prioritizes the need of nutrients or energy sources based on your biological demand and need.
Link?

The trap some people likely do fall into is overestimating their calories burned. Biking at a relaxed pace burns very few calories. Most of the general public I see on bikes typical rides at a relaxed, or most precisely nearly comatose state based on my observations :D If they are assuming they are burning 400 calories in a hour coasting along at 8mph while occasionally pedaling then they will be very off in the calorie in/calorie out calculation. If they happened to have a power meter on that same bike, or at least were wearing a heart rate monitor, they'd get a much clearer picture of the minimal calories they are burning.

And even the most exact calorie burn measurements in the real world (not in a highly controlled lab) are going to be off some amount. A scale tells the ultimate truth at the end of the day (or ideally the beginning).

queloque67
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:25 am

by queloque67

joejack951 wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 8:54 pm
queloque67 wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 8:18 pm
I think what the general public mistakes about the calorie in vs calorie out is people have this presumption that if they eat a 99 cent bag of chips that is about 1500 calories, they just need to do a 4 hour bike ride that burns 1500 calories and they are good. Many people literally believe they are burning those 1500 calories from the chips they ate. its not a 1 to 1 relationship which a lot of people believe what calorie in/calorie out means.

So at a basic level, yes, rules of thermodynamics apply, but technically the body handles a fat calorie different from a carb calorie or a protein calorie depending on what state your body is in...i.e. just waking up in the morning and eating, or right after cardio or right after weight lifting or right after muscle glygogen levels are depleted or liver glycogen are depleted or brain glucose are depleted. It all depends on what state the body is in when consuming dietary calories during a point in time because the body prioritizes the need of nutrients or energy sources based on your biological demand and need.
Link?

The trap some people likely do fall into is overestimating their calories burned. Biking at a relaxed pace burns very few calories. Most of the general public I see on bikes typical rides at a relaxed, or most precisely nearly comatose state based on my observations :D If they are assuming they are burning 400 calories in a hour coasting along at 8mph while occasionally pedaling then they will be very off in the calorie in/calorie out calculation. If they happened to have a power meter on that same bike, or at least were wearing a heart rate monitor, they'd get a much clearer picture of the minimal calories they are burning.

And even the most exact calorie burn measurements in the real world (not in a highly controlled lab) are going to be off some amount. A scale tells the ultimate truth at the end of the day (or ideally the beginning).

Again, saying calorie in vs calorie out is a state of interpretation. If I eat a piece of cake i'm not going to run outside and jump on my bike afterward thinking i'm going to directly burn the calories from that piece of cake i just ate to fight the guilt of eating junk food. Because i know i'm still digesting it. What i'm burning its what is already stored in my muscle glycogen or liver stores and depending on my intensity am i'm burning mostly stored body fat, or dietary fat in my blood or blood glucose or muscle glycogen stores.

I'm simply saying the body is more complicated than calories in calories out. If it was that simple I should be 120 pounds by now based on my 11,000 miles of riding last year and my caloric intake.

User avatar
853guy
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:48 pm

by 853guy

joejack951 wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:12 pm
Having 'Western diet' foods available only causes obesity because people eat it. They don't need to eat it but it takes good, it's readily available, and is generally cheap. That's hardly comparable to diabetes, dementia, and Alzheimer's. Of course, those diseases are totally irrelevant to our discussion, or so I thought.

I'm not even going to try and comment on any of that :D

Why do you think losing additional weight must be done by a 'shift toward anaerobic (building/maintaining lean muscle mass)? You say it as if it's a fact and also keep repeating that it's not just 'calories in/calories out.' Nothing I have ever read refutes calories in/calories out. It is probably the only hard and fast diet rule there is. Building muscle mass does increase one's metabolic rate but that's simply more calories out even at rest. But the fact remains that the leaner you get, the fewer 'free' calories out you get. So losing weight becomes tougher.

From the article: " This theory proposes a proportional feedback control system designed to regulate body weight to a constant ‘body-inherent’ weight, namely the set point weight [1]. The system, according to this theory, adjusts food intake or energy expenditure (or both) in proportion to the difference between the current body weight and the set point weight."

Food intake: calories in
Energy expenditure: calories out

They aren't arguing this basic fact only that it seems people gravitate toward a certain weight depending on the food around them. Makes sense to me. Doesn't refute any of what I've said either.
Hi joejack,

Thanks for taking the time to answer. It's nearly midnight and I have a meeting first thing, so unfortunately (or perhaps, fortunately) I'll be brief.

I'm certainly not attempting to refute the laws of thermodynamics, nor your basic observation. I'm just trying to broaden the discussion.

Some more food for thought (geddit?):

"We conclude that a calorie is a calorie. From a purely thermodynamic point of view, this is clear because the human body or, indeed, any living organism cannot create or destroy energy but can only convert energy from one form to another. In comparing energy balance between dietary treatments, however, it must be remembered that the units of dietary energy are metabolizable energy and not gross energy. This is perhaps unfortunate because metabolizable energy is much more difficult to determine than is gross energy, because the Atwater factors used in calculating metabolizable energy are not exact. As such, our food tables are not perfect, and small errors are associated with their use.

In addition, we concede that the substitution of one macronutrient for another has been shown in some studies to have a statistically significant effect on the expenditure half of the energy balance equation. This has been observed most often for high-protein diets. Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another."

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/79/5/899S/4690223

Again, not attempting to refute what you've been saying, just trying to move toward a more broadly observed discussion in which other variables (macronutrient composition, metabolizable energy, body/muscle mass and recomposition rather than "weight loss" per se) are considered.

Be well,

853guy

queloque67
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:25 am

by queloque67

853guy wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:04 am
joejack951 wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:12 pm
Having 'Western diet' foods available only causes obesity because people eat it. They don't need to eat it but it takes good, it's readily available, and is generally cheap. That's hardly comparable to diabetes, dementia, and Alzheimer's. Of course, those diseases are totally irrelevant to our discussion, or so I thought.

I'm not even going to try and comment on any of that :D

Why do you think losing additional weight must be done by a 'shift toward anaerobic (building/maintaining lean muscle mass)? You say it as if it's a fact and also keep repeating that it's not just 'calories in/calories out.' Nothing I have ever read refutes calories in/calories out. It is probably the only hard and fast diet rule there is. Building muscle mass does increase one's metabolic rate but that's simply more calories out even at rest. But the fact remains that the leaner you get, the fewer 'free' calories out you get. So losing weight becomes tougher.

From the article: " This theory proposes a proportional feedback control system designed to regulate body weight to a constant ‘body-inherent’ weight, namely the set point weight [1]. The system, according to this theory, adjusts food intake or energy expenditure (or both) in proportion to the difference between the current body weight and the set point weight."

Food intake: calories in
Energy expenditure: calories out

They aren't arguing this basic fact only that it seems people gravitate toward a certain weight depending on the food around them. Makes sense to me. Doesn't refute any of what I've said either.
Hi joejack,

Thanks for taking the time to answer. It's nearly midnight and I have a meeting first thing, so unfortunately (or perhaps, fortunately) I'll be brief.

I'm certainly not attempting to refute the laws of thermodynamics, nor your basic observation. I'm just trying to broaden the discussion.

Some more food for thought (geddit?):

"We conclude that a calorie is a calorie. From a purely thermodynamic point of view, this is clear because the human body or, indeed, any living organism cannot create or destroy energy but can only convert energy from one form to another. In comparing energy balance between dietary treatments, however, it must be remembered that the units of dietary energy are metabolizable energy and not gross energy. This is perhaps unfortunate because metabolizable energy is much more difficult to determine than is gross energy, because the Atwater factors used in calculating metabolizable energy are not exact. As such, our food tables are not perfect, and small errors are associated with their use.

In addition, we concede that the substitution of one macronutrient for another has been shown in some studies to have a statistically significant effect on the expenditure half of the energy balance equation. This has been observed most often for high-protein diets. Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another."

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/79/5/899S/4690223

Again, not attempting to refute what you've been saying, just trying to move toward a more broadly observed discussion in which other variables (macronutrient composition, metabolizable energy, body/muscle mass and recomposition rather than "weight loss" per se) are considered.

Be well,

853guy

I might add...the body isn't just looking for an energy source it wants a nutrient/micro nutrient source as well. We are just more obsessed with energy sources (macronutrients i.e. fat and glucose) because we just want to lose weight more than wanting proper nutrients or overall health. The body wants all of it. Carbs have way more micro-nutrients than proteins or fats assuming you are eating whole foods, so its not going to just burn off 100% of it just for energy but also for absorption into your cells. And the body is not going to burn off fat unless glucose is depleted to a certain degree or your intensity is low enough where body burns more stored fat than glucose . Its way beyond just calorie in vs calorie out.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post