The Tautology of Calories In/Calories Out explained

Discussions on scientific and technological advances, both old and new.

The Tautology of Calories In/Calories Out explained

Unread postby Intercourseman72 » Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:31 pm

Science: So why do people get fat?

Experts: It's because they consume more energy than they expend. Calories in was greater than calories out. First two laws of thermodynamics. It's that simple.

Science: So why do they consume more energy than they expend? On a side note, do you really understand how the laws of thermodynamics pertain to this subject, or are you just assuming the layman won't know what the laws actually are?

Experts: Because they do for the first question, and they layman doesn't have to know anything because everything we tell them is right for the second question.

Science: "Because they do" isn't an answer to the question, and your presupposed authority of knowledge is very unscientific and pretty creepy, actually.

Experts: Maybe because they don't have enough self-control to limit their calories, and who gives a shit about being scientific?

Science: Ok, so why can't they control themselves? Is it that people who aren't fat like teenage boys have self-control and menopausal women don't?

Experts : It's too complicated for stupid people so calories in/calories out will just have to suffice.

Science : But you just said it was as simple as calories in/calories out.

Experts : Alright fine, just don't cry to us when your brain starts to hurt after reading our profound insight on this topic. [Now quoting from an NIH report published in 2000.] “Obesity is a complex, multifactorial chronic disease that develops from an interaction of genotype and the environment. Our understanding of how and why obesity develops is incomplete, but involves the integration of social, behavioral, cultural, physiological, metabolic and genetic factors.”

Science : That's quite contrary to it being all about calories. So explain how all of those factors contribute to people getting fat.

Experts :It's very uncertain. Can't you read? Our understanding is incomplete.

Science :So why do you still keep pushing calories in/calories out? Why not incorporate all of those other factors into an at least partial but more plausible theory of why we get fat and get the corollary diseases with obesity by involving all of those aforementioned factors and explain how they cause our metabolisms to become dysfunctional?

Experts :To answer that question, I will ask another. Do you have a Ph.D in medical science?

Science :No, and what does that have to do with anything?

Experts :Absolutely everything. Pwnd!!
This is my re-touch of Gary Taubes' "The Inanity of Overeating" blog post.

What Calories in/Calories out Does Not Explain

What proponents of this explanation basically say is that in order to lose weight you need to consume few enough calories so that your body burns more than it consumes. The caloric deficit will result in weight loss to the degree that you cut calories. This fails to address why people consume more than they need and thus store the extra energy in the specific form of body fat as opposed to bone marrow, muscle mass, neurons, intestinal tissue, etc., but I will focus on some common techniques such advocates recommend to people who are trying to lose weight.

Some common recommendations will be to eat more meals throughout the day, eat smaller portions of food, eat smaller snacks between meals, exercise to burn more calories throughout the day, eat the same amount of meals but just smaller meals during the day and eat a little food between meals to fill you up more during the day.

First off, this involves weight loss in general. It does not consider whether it's lean body mass, fluids or fat. It's possible to gain/lose lean body mass, fluids or fat alone without losing anything else. They do not require the precise amount or types of nutrients provided by different food sources. Already, we see the lack of nuance this theory provides. Even when you separate the body into the most general components, this theory is highly limited in its explanation of how to lose/gain weight for the purposes of improving health. Not only does it not explain how to decrease fat and maintain/gain weight in fluids and lean mass, but it also does not consider the distribution of such losses and gains throughout the body. Why is it that your forearms, foreheads, feet-bottoms, necks, etc do not gather fat the same degree your abdomens, thighs, buttocks, etc do? Why is it that you develop more muscle in your legs, back, buttocks, etc than your upper arms, shoulders, hands, etc? This extremely crude theory cannot even provide any semblance of understanding after introducing the most obvious of complexities.

This also implies the notion that in order to keep our weight under control we need to ceaselessly monitor our caloric intake and have the knowledge required for doing so. So how do people stay lean without such information? The term, calorie, wasn't even defined until 1824. A great percentage of the world population has no knowledge of the caloric content of their foods and many without access to that knowledge. How do Inuit Eskimos maintain leanness and vitality in absence of the "diseases of civilization"? Do they somehow have some pre-historic tribal knowledge of the caloric content of seal blubber? They sure are savvy at survival in very hostile lands, but is it realistic to think that they can determine how many calories are in the foods they hunt? Why is it that Australian Aborigines don't suffer from obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc with a tribal lifestyle but had a 31% obesity rate in 2001 resulting from an adoption of a western diet and lifestyle mainly subsidized by the Australian government? Is it that in the wild they are better at making sure their meal portions are reasonable, that they eat 4-6 meals throughout the day to supposedly increase their metabolism, and only eat wild foods with nutrition labels on them? Do they know the caloric amount of foods better than the Australian government whom they often receive the majority of their foods from? And why stop with humans? Unless humans are some sort of freakish evolutionary anomaly as far as weight control goes, shouldn't we apply the same standard to animals? When a shark hunts seals or a crocodile hunts zebras do they look around for ones that will be precisely sufficient to sustain their caloric needs based on their basal metabolic rates and their additional caloric expenditure due to physical activity? And when there is a greater amount of food available do animals in the wild get fatter? Do deer in the US get a fatter as a result of the abundance of food and lack of predators? Do they suffer from hypertension, hyperinsulinemia, myocardial infarction, etc? No, they instead increase in population, not in body weight. Does this mean they simply have much better self control and so much more discipline to ignore hunger and prevent themselves from over indulging than humans?

The silliness of this idiotic diatribe that you could only believe if you were an expert is really obvious just by thinking a tiny little bit outside of conventional thought. Some less obvious examples that prove this wrong outright are populations that suffer from obesity despite being very physically active, have children who are rail thin but the adults are obese, they don't have enough food for a caloric surplus, and are too poor to go to a fast food place or convenient store or those places don't exist where they live so they can't secretly sneak off while no one is looking and just binge off of food. One example is the Pima Indian tribe that transitioned from a comparatively wealthy society in the 1840s and prior but with much better health to an impoverished society by the 1870s due to gold rushers diverting rivers, over hunting game, etc. In 1902 the famous Fat Louise picture became a poster child for their seemingly paradoxical situation where their main sources of food were not big macs and KFC but flour based foods provided by the local government. In this case, the children were thin and underfed, but the adults were obese and underfed. Another example similar to this would be the Sioux South Dakota Crow Creek Reservation in the 1920s. They basically lived off bread and coffee but had very high obesity rates, and no, they weren't being slipped chicken Mcnuggets or getting up at midnight to eat all the pastries they had left over in their non-existent refrigerators. Chilean factory workers in the early 1970s had similar bare bones diets but were active much more obvious ways. If you don't think working in a factory burns calories, please go and try it yourself so I can laugh at you. So for Ci/Co to hold water, it would have to explain why the children were so thin compared to the adults, why they could become obese despite obvious caloric deficits, how poverty and struggle for sustenance can lead to such high rates of obesity and why they gain fat instead of more muscular or anything else, etc. I suppose that all these people had parents who took way more than their share from the kids so they could become fat, they have anomalously low basal metabolic rates for their size and they don't burn nearly as many calories as the rest of the people in the world when doing grueling physical labor, aliens from outer space abducted them and force fed only the adults and not the kids, and they all have a genetic disposition to gain body fat as opposed to anything else(oh wait, Ci/Co doesn't consider genes either). I could do more absurd mental acrobatics, but this will suffice.



Thermodynamics
This section is about how the laws of thermodynamics actually refutes the notion that a calorie is just a calorie and we need to control our calories on whole in order to lose weight.

There are four laws of thermodynamics, but only laws one and two are relevant to this discussion, so I will omit the zeroth and third laws.

The first law is the conservation of energy. The energy of a system plus its surroundings is constant at all times because energy is not created or destroyed but, instead, changes form. So if a calorie holds a constant amount of energy then of course a calorie is always a calorie. We are good on this statement with the first law alone. Let's introduce the second law.

The second law is that entropy in an isolated system increases after any process of work. That is, the system loses energy in the form heat after performing work. In the case with the human body, any process that it performs, it loses some energy through a loss of heat. It is not and never will be a 100% efficient system. It cannot use a certain amount of energy for the same amount of work. Energy = work + entropy.

Calories consumed = calories used by the body + entropy.

100 calories = 70/80/90 calories used + 30/20/10 calories of heat not used by the body(entropy). The reason I used varying numbers for the calories used and calories of entropy is because a calorie is not just a calorie in this case given this second law.

For a gram of carbohydrate to be converted into sugar, it undergoes a very simple process. Starch breaks down into sugar by an enzyme in the saliva. You can raise your blood sugar by putting a whole wheat bread loaf in your mouth and start salivating. It does not require nearly as many processes to be used by the body for energy (to be converted into sugar) as protein or fat. Since carbohydrate and protein contain the same amount of calories per unit of mass (4kcal/g) I will focus on this comparison. Compared to carbohydrate, protein is converted into sugar through a very complex process known as gluconeogenesis. None of the processes involved during gluconeogenesis are 100% efficient as explained by the second law of thermodynamics and thus lose energy during each process in the form of heat. On top of this, protein is used for things besides being converted into sugar and, therefore, ends up with less energy for the liver to use during its vastly more elaborate process converting it into sugar than it would to convert carbohydrate into sugar. In this case, it should be painfully clear that a calorie is absolutely not just a calorie. A calorie of carbohydrate loses much less energy through heat to be converted into sugar than a calorie of protein.

I now conclude that purely using the laws of thermodynamics and some commonly known facts about human metabolism that a diet with the exact same amount of calories could produce extremely different results depending on the macronutrient content. Highly dependent on the macronutrient content if we control for all other variables.

I am convinced that my reasoning on this topic is very strong, but I also will provide a very pertinent study on this subject.
Results: Postprandial thermogenesis at 2.5 hours post-meal averaged about twofold higher on the high protein diet versus the high carbohydrate diet, and differences were significant after the breakfast and the dinner meals (p < 0.05). Body temperature was slightly higher on the high protein diet (p = 0.08 after the dinner meal). Changes in the respiratory quotient post-meals did not differ by diet, and there was no difference in 24-hour glomerular filtration rates by diet. Nitrogen balance was significantly greater on the high-protein diet compared to the high-carbohydrate diet (7.6 ± 0.9 and -0.4 ± 0.5 gN/day, p < 0.05), and at 24-hour post-intervention, fasting plasma urea nitrogen concentrations were raised on the high protein diet versus the high-carbohydrate diet (13.9 ± 0.9 and 11.2 ± 1.0 mg/dL respectively, p < 0.05).
The full text is available as well. http://www.jacn.org/content/21/1/55.full
I don't advocate a diet that is low in fat, but this study nonetheless supports my reasoning very well. Percentage of fat intake was held constant and protein/carb intake was altered in an inverse fashion.
So there you have it, Calories In/Calories Out falls flat on its face when considering the most fundamental laws of reality.

Concluding the Tautology
Difference in energy = energy in - energy out. If we gain mass, that means we've consumed more energy than we expended. With this equation, people presuppose the causality and say "yes, if we eat too much, then we get fat". It assumes that if we eat too much and do too little then we will gain weight. However, we need to emphasize the fact that this is an equation and that based solely on this equation it is appropriate to assume causality in either direction. Logically, you could just as plausibly state that having too much weight causes us to eat more and do less. Despite this equation providing not indication of causality, we assume the causality in one particular direction, which is fallacious given what we are provided. Equations can work both ways.

The fact of the matter is that fat people are not more energetic than non-fat people despite the supposition that they have all this extra stored energy to be used. Rather, they tend to have less energy and get tired more easily and still get very hungry. This should be pretty obvious, I am not going to pretend that anyone needs some sort of statistics on this, I will just assert it. You don't see obese people in the Olympics or in elite competitions unless the sport requires lots of fat like Sumo Wrestling or even playing basketball or whatever despite this commonly held opinion that they have so much extra energy. You see them sluggish, tired, winded after mild physical activity, or they are hidden away on the couch. Contrarily, people who are fit are the ones who become active of their own volition because they have so much energy available for use. They even get angsty if they don't do some physical recreation or exercise. Again, this should be self-evident to anyone who interacts with people every once in a while.

Another reason it's not necessarily the case that overeating causes weight gain is because the body does not always store excess energy. The body does not store everything left over that it consumes but does not use. We are not encapsulated reservoirs that hold on to energy unless we use it through work. There is something called feces. Feces is the body's waste product and it contains mass. I've seen figures that you crap 43g/10kg of body weight per day, but that will vary a lot for every individual. The point is that the equation delta E = E in - E out only applies to a closed system if you assume that the only way for something to use energy is through work. Humans are not such closed systems. This equation never has and never will apply to humans or any life form or any dynamic system. We have the ability to discard excess energy rather than storing it.

So there. Ci/Co is a relentlessly failtacular concept. I, however, do not have the tenacity and relentlessness to point out how this idiotic diatribe fails they way it deserves to be pointed out. Just discard it and don't store it. Your body doesn't have to hold on to everything it consumes, and your brain doesn't have to either.

Some people to check out on this subject are Doug McGuff, Gary Taubes, Drs Michael and Mary Dan Eades, Tom Naughton, and they will have links to other people who study this stuff on their websites.
Last edited by Intercourseman72 on Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
read the words of a wise intercourseman
User avatar
Intercourseman72
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:57 am
Location: Austin, Texas
Reputation point: 541

Re: The Tautology of Calories In/Calories Out explained

Unread postby Azmodan Kijur » Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:41 pm

Intercourseman72 wrote:Concluding the Tautology
Difference in energy = energy in - energy out. If we gain mass, that means we've consumed more energy than we expended. With this equation, people presuppose the causality and say "yes, if we eat too much, then we get fat". It assumes that if we eat too much and do too little then we will gain weight. However, we need to emphasize the fact that this is an equation and that based solely on this equation it is appropriate to assume causality in either direction. Logically, you could just as plausibly state that having too much weight causes us to eat more and do less. Despite this equation providing not indication of causality, we assume the causality in one particular direction, which is fallacious given what we are provided. Equations can work both ways.


Not sure what your point is with this. Logically, you can state just that. Having more weight increases the caloric requirements of the body. Each pound you have (in the most simplistic sense) requires X number calories to maintain. Maintenance refers to all those activities necessary to ensure homeostasis continues as normal - to analogize a building, that is the heat, the lights, the phones, the network infrastructure, the wiring, the server room, all the moving components, all the manufacturing processes, and so forth. Your brain needs X number of calories to operate, your electrical impulse require energy to be generated, your nerves need it, your bones need it, the marrow needs it, even the fat cells need it. All cellular activity in your body needs power. Food is power. The metric of caloric requirements states simply that each pound on your body requires a given number of calories to maintain these operations. This is not a simple number that covers all - a really athletic person needs more calories per pound than does a sedentary individual. A simple multiplier is an easy short-cut. For males, it's 14; for females, it's 12. That's for sedentary people. So multiply each pound by that number and you get the basic requirement number.

Yes, it is imprecise, but it is accurate enough to get the big picture from. When I was 260 pounds, that metric stated that I had to be eating somewhere in the vicinity of 3,640 calories a day to maintain weight. Yes, even my fat cells needed that. They are cells after all. So I monitored it. Sure enough, my average intake was that and higher. I wanted to get down to 150 area. That's 2,100 calories for support. So I actually cut slowly toward 1,800 so as to lose the weight. And it worked.

Back to the matter of the opposite of the equation - if calories make you get heavy, then being heavy makes you eat more. Well, yeah. Of course. Why would that not be the case, exactly. If I am to maintain a high weight, I have to eat. My body will indicate that it is hungry as it figures that it needs to support all cells and the activity required to move me around at that weight and so forth. So it will try to ensure I eat to maintain, at least. Of course, then the other problem crops up. Eating is enjoyable. I like food. Some people love it. So your body doesn't really need to go all out to get you to eat for maintenance levels. If you are heavy, that maintenance is higher and the body will want to maintain that higher weight, thus you will eat more. As you eat more, your stomach also tends to stretch, allowing more to be entered and requiring more to "feel full". So it actually gets easier to indulge as time goes by. Weight requires eating to maintain. So the equation does work both ways.

Intercourseman72 wrote:The fact of the matter is that fat people are not more energetic than non-fat people despite the supposition that they have all this extra stored energy to be used. Rather, they tend to have less energy and get tired more easily and still get very hungry. This should be pretty obvious, I am not going to pretend that anyone needs some sort of statistics on this, I will just assert it. You don't see obese people in the Olympics or in elite competitions unless the sport requires lots of fat like Sumo Wrestling or even playing basketball or whatever despite this commonly held opinion that they have so much extra energy. You see them sluggish, tired, winded after mild physical activity, or they are hidden away on the couch. Contrarily, people who are fit are the ones who become active of their own volition because they have so much energy available for use. They even get angsty if they don't do some physical recreation or exercise. Again, this should be self-evident to anyone who interacts with people every once in a while.


Again, there is a conflation here. Obese people need more calories for a variety of reasons, all inter-related to their higher weigh. For example, the heavier you are, the stronger you are. Strange, isn't it? Most of the bouncers at clubs and bars here in St. John's are overweight individuals. The reason is obvious - they are strong enough to bounce you off the walls if you try something. To carry that weight and move it around, you need to have strength. No, not Olympic level fast muscles with extreme endurance. More the matter of station keeping strength. You have to have larger and stronger muscles to move. Yes, these are slow muscles, but they are strong and they require lots of energy, part of that cellular maintenance I mentioned.

They do not have "less energy", they just tire quickly due to the energy requirements of moving their massive frames. They get hungry because they need the energy to maintain motion. Yes, they have a pile of stored energy, but as you should well be aware, stored fat is slow to burn. The body is genetically predisposed to storage and slow usage. It resists (or will try to) decreases in calories or increases in activity. A "simple" act of willpower is needed to overcome ones biology. The brain is more powerful than the body, after all. But I put simple in quotes for a reason - self control is hardly a common thing. Look to the people addicted to drugs or alcohol, coffee or gambling. Willpower is easy to name up, but harder for people to enact. I did it, but I am a willful little fucker.

Intercourseman72 wrote:Another reason it's not necessarily the case that overeating causes weight gain is because the body does not always store excess energy. The body does not store everything left over that it consumes but does not use. We are not encapsulated reservoirs that hold on to energy unless we use it through work. There is something called feces. Feces is the body's waste product and it contains mass. I've seen figures that you crap 43g/10kg of body weight per day, but that will vary a lot for every individual. The point is that the equation delta E = E in - E out only applies to a closed system if you assume that the only way for something to use energy is through work. Humans are not such closed systems. This equation never has and never will apply to humans or any life form or any dynamic system. We have the ability to discard excess energy rather than storing it.


Wrong. The body is genetically predisposed to the storage of excess calories as fat. Fat is energy stored away for later problems. The reason we store fat so easily as a race is the old demon of evolution. Those that gorged and stored and were later able to live off the stored energy for periods of time survived. Those that could not do so died. That is pretty much why we all have the fat storing ability (evolution may be creating people that can't store now and our modern society allows them to live and procreate).

Feces? You do realize that when you eat, your body begins a process of digestion. The material is rendered in the stomach and broken down. A portion is absorbed through the stomach wall and the rest is sent into the long hell of the small intestine. As it passes through there, the dozens of microbes that live within chew and break down the material further. Bile is added to handle any meats that pass through. Throughout this passage, the intestine absorbs what it can from the food - sugars, fats, proteins, minerals, water. All is scoped up through osmosis. And by all, of course, I mean 17%. On average. You and I might differ by .01% or so, but we basically absorb about 17% of the food we eat by weight. In that absorption, we take on all the calories we can from the food. The Carbs, the Fat, and the Protein are scooped up. The remaining 83% or so of the mass is expelled - your feces, my friend. When you defecate, there are few calories that you need left in it. There are piles of your microbes in it and a second eating can derive more good from it, but that feces is the leftovers of the process. The calories have been absorbed.

I am certain that you are aware that the caloric measurements we give things tends to keep that in mind. We measure what you absorb. A KitKat bar has 240 calories - that is what you will absorb from eating it. It is not the simple matter of the weight of the product. You expel no excess energy in your feces beyond the fact that it is heated from the internal processes of the body. Heat is energy of course and is the major product of cellular processes, digestion and just about everything else we do. Your urine is the system, distended from the digestive system, that expels waste from the cells after they consume the calories that we take in. Heats, metabolic processes, cellular division, replication, biological generation, electrical generation, motor neuron coordination, large scale motion fuel, minor constant motion fuel (e.g., the heart), etc. All of these are the avenue of the calorie. It is what they are used to maintain. Bigger people need more. Hell, think of it like heating a house. A small house requires few BTU's to heat. Not as much space, after all. A large house requires many BTU's - a lot more space to heat. Same with the body. Bigger parts require more heating. The heart needs to work harder to pump blood to these areas and so forth.

Intercourseman72 wrote:So there. Ci/Co is a relentlessly failtacular concept. I, however, do not have the tenacity and relentlessness to point out how this idiotic diatribe fails they way it deserves to be pointed out. Just discard it and don't store it. Your body doesn't have to hold on to everything it consumes, and your brain doesn't have to either.


It is most certainly not "failtacular". Energy is stored for later use. Burning it takes time. This is the reason that calories in and calories out works. You can't store it if you don't eat it. If you don't eat enough to maintain metabolic processes, the body will reluctantly burn stored energy to make up for it. In doing so, it actually burns up the very thing causing it to require so much energy. The weigh drops and the required energy needs drop as well. The math is brutal in it biological simplicity. Like I said before, though, it requires will power to enact. We could try to estimate how many actually have that power.
Azmodan Kijur
Chat Moderator
Chat Moderator
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:29 pm
Reputation point: 2055

Re: The Tautology of Calories In/Calories Out explained

Unread postby Intercourseman72 » Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:47 pm

Nope, there is not a causal relationship between weight and strength. Were you stronger when you were fat or now that you slimmed down? I thought it appropriate to focus on your individual case because that's apparently what you base your opinions off of pertaining to this stuff.

Image
This is Casey Viator before and after his 28 day workout routine during the famous Colorado Experiment. He gained 63 pounds of lean mass and lost about 18 pounds of fat. He went down to about 2.57% body fat. Which picture do you think he was stronger in? Arthur Jones made dramatic gains in muscle himself and lost 2 pounds of body fat in the process despite being ill during the workout and only doing upper body exercises. Arthur Jones described Casey Viator's leg workouts as so intense and brutal that Paul Anderson (the squat powerlifting champion at the time) would require a novacaine injection into his legs in order to endure the pain. The reason Viator and other bodybuilding freaks can't compete with pudgy powerlifters is that they have a mesomorph body type that is far less advantageous to lifting weight than a stocky, short-limbed endomorph. Endomorphs have to produce less force to overcome the same amount of resistance. That's not because they are necessarily stronger, just that they have a mechanical advantage. But when you have weight classes for powerlifting, say 170 pounds, those guys can be very lean. If you restrict the weight, it's best that every possible pound on you is muscle. Fat does not increase strength at all, it's just associated with big burly guys whose bodies store lots of their food in both fat AND lean body mass.
C'mon, this is science. We need to be aware of the correlation/causation fallacy at all times.

Btw, there is also no such thing as slower or faster muscles. Being able to move against resistance requires strength. More strength means you can more resistance faster. You can throw a baseball much faster than you can throw a bowling ball. If you increase your strength (and keep your throwing skills constant), you will be able to throw them more quickly. There are fast and slow fatiguing muscle fibers, but there is no difference in how quickly they can move. Makes the terms fast and slow twitch muscle fibers misleading. Slow twitch take more time to fatigue and less time to require and there are increasingly rapid fatiguing fast twitch muslce fibers fater the slow oxidative (SO) muscle fiber types. Olympic sprinters often have a variety of super fast twitch muscle fibers that hardly anyone else has. With these fiber types, they can produce more power per weight of muscle fiber than anyone else in the world can, but they only last very briefly.
read the words of a wise intercourseman
User avatar
Intercourseman72
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:57 am
Location: Austin, Texas
Reputation point: 541

Re: The Tautology of Calories In/Calories Out explained

Unread postby DVR » Sun Nov 20, 2011 7:46 pm

Work potential is work potential, the chemical interactions which follow for a given consumer are pretty much irrelevant, unless ofcourse human biology has magically subverted the laws of phyics? Calories in, chemistry out is how it should be termed. The fact that every MODERN athelete uses the basic premise of "calories in chemistry out" should be an indicator that it is a fact.

"WHY?", I hear you ask, "surely that is argumentum ad populum?"

No it is NOT argumentum ad populum, it might be if there were no difference in the preformance of atheletes who consumed "proportionally" more energy to those which consumed less, but here is an an uncomfortable truth, ALL ATHELETES bar none, consume more calories than they would otherwise require if they were not training. This is regardless of individual genetics, and the results are UNIFORMLY stronger better atheletes in any field.

Here is a simple question which should illustrate the fallacy of physics denial,

"What biological processes can produce calories, in excess of those calories consumed?"
User avatar
DVR
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:02 pm
Reputation point: 0

Re: The Tautology of Calories In/Calories Out explained

Unread postby Intercourseman72 » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:26 am

Ok, I can't understand why you would make that post DVR. I can't think of a single reason why you would think anything you just said was at all relevant to the topic at hand unless you didn't read even the first part of my post and assumed I was denying physics just by reading the title.

"Work potential is work potential". I'd be surprised if you even thoroughly read the title. It has the word tautology in the damn title. It's a vacuous statement and doesn't explain anything that helps us understand how people gain and lose weight (fat) in general and more detailed biochemistry in particular. That was kind of the point my post.

I don't care if Michael Phelps consumes 8-10k calories a day during the Olympics as opposed to when he's smoking weed and getting the munchies. He gets way hungrier during the Olympics than if he were to sit around all day even if he were totally stoned. He doesn't need to look at a chart to see how many calories he needs, his body will tell him. And we didn't evolve hunger and satiety signals in order to make us out of shape, sick, disgusting, unhealthy and vulnerable to predators. We'd be totally fucked in the wild if we needed to monitor our caloric intake all day. Of course every modern athlete is aware of calories, but that doesn't mean they need to strictly control them in aggregate in order to optimize their performance. Every primitive athlete ate more for a competition, and no, it's not because they were like "well gee, there are 4 calories in every gram of protein, so I'd better eat 150g to get my 600 calories from protein, which will be 15% or whatever of my total caloric intake, and then I'll...", no, they didn't do that and I seriously doubt modern athletes do that now and even if they ALL did, it doesn't mean they need to.

To quote Arthur Jones, "the smartest thing you could do for professional sports is take the top 500 coaches and trainers, load them onto a 747 and fly them into a mountain."
read the words of a wise intercourseman
User avatar
Intercourseman72
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:57 am
Location: Austin, Texas
Reputation point: 541

Re: The Tautology of Calories In/Calories Out explained

Unread postby Intercourseman72 » Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:11 am

Feces? You do realize that when you eat, your body begins a process of digestion. The material is rendered in the stomach and broken down. A portion is absorbed through the stomach wall and the rest is sent into the long hell of the small intestine. As it passes through there, the dozens of microbes that live within chew and break down the material further. Bile is added to handle any meats that pass through. Throughout this passage, the intestine absorbs what it can from the food - sugars, fats, proteins, minerals, water. All is scoped up through osmosis. And by all, of course, I mean 17%. On average. You and I might differ by .01% or so, but we basically absorb about 17% of the food we eat by weight. In that absorption, we take on all the calories we can from the food. The Carbs, the Fat, and the Protein are scooped up. The remaining 83% or so of the mass is expelled - your feces, my friend. When you defecate, there are few calories that you need left in it. There are piles of your microbes in it and a second eating can derive more good from it, but that feces is the leftovers of the process. The calories have been absorbed.


No I didn't realize my body begins a process of digestion when I ate. Thanks. That was really insightful. I was mistaken in thinking that it just happened to everyone else except me.

So apparently typing in "calories discarded in feces" into google is really hard and time consuming so I took 3 seconds to type it in and 3 minutes to read of its significance from the first search item. I sure am tired and wiped out after doing that. I need to make sure I know how many calories I need to consume so I don't accidentally starve to death.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PwIcAQ ... es&f=false
That's the first link and it pretty much just states that calories lost through feces is a relevant factor to consider.

The thing to point out is that the calories your body uses have been absorbed. It can still avoid storing or using them immediately. Consider what a calorie is. It's a unit of energy that raises one liter of water 1 degree celsius. If you burn a turd in a bomb calorimeter, you can measure how much heat it gives off to measure how many calories it has given how much warmer the water gotten. My point about feces was a simple one; that your body doesn't use or store every calorie it consumes.

How do you know your body will absorb the 240 calories from the kitkat bar? Do food manufacturers put on their food labels the calories you will absorb or do they simply go by how much energy they have? I'm pretty sure it's the latter. And btw, IIRC, they mainly determine how many calories are in their food by adding up the grams per serving and multiply it by the marcronutrient content's calories/gram. So it kind of is about weight, just not entirely.
read the words of a wise intercourseman
User avatar
Intercourseman72
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:57 am
Location: Austin, Texas
Reputation point: 541

Re: The Tautology of Calories In/Calories Out explained

Unread postby DVR » Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:37 pm

And we didn't evolve hunger and satiety signals in order to make us out of shape, sick, disgusting, unhealthy and vulnerable to predators. We'd be totally fucked in the wild if we needed to monitor our caloric [sic recte, calorific] intake all day.


You do realise that evolution is not directed by an overarching intellegence, don't you? The reason why humans have a tendency to over-eat and become fat, is because those humans which maximised calorific intake in times of plenty, had a better chance of surviving times of calorie deficit. The fact that humans sucessfully use the calories in - calories out model to lose unwanted fat and/or gain muscle is evidence of the efficacy of the approach.

At the end day the human animal is an energy processing machine. It takes energy in through food consumption, processes it to do work, ie expends some or all of the consumed energy, and then stores the remainder for expenditure at a later date. While the intricasies of the bio-chemical and psychological processes are interesting, they do not in any way indicate that the physics of life are different from the physics of say an internal combustion engine.
User avatar
DVR
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:02 pm
Reputation point: 0

Re: The Tautology of Calories In/Calories Out explained

Unread postby Intercourseman72 » Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:23 pm

"You do realise that evolution is not directed by an overarching intellegence, don't you? "

No I didn't realize that. Thank you for telling me this you snarky, cocksucking smug piece of shit.
Ass.

"The reason why humans have a tendency to over-eat and become fat, is because those humans which maximised calorific intake in times of plenty, had a better chance of surviving times of calorie deficit."

Hey DVR, You do realize that a man of average size man can survive a whole month on his fat reserves alone if he's as lean as 10% body fat while not eating anything, right? Did you realize that? I mean you are such a fucking genius I figured you would realize this and totally wouldn't just pull a bunch of bullshit out of your ass and eat it. I mean, I understand that we just have a propensity to eat and eat and eat with no regulatory mechanisms to tell us when we are full and when we a properly fueled and have the energy required to carry out day-to-day tasks as well as be prepared to for times where food wasn't as plentiful. No. We are just eating machines without any inhibition to how much we eat or what kinds of things we eat. It's just eat whenever we can and as much as we can. And it's all the same too. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. Fat and protein (in absence of carbohydrate) totally don't signal cholecystokinin as soon as it enters the small intestine and make you not care for food anymore. And carbohydrate totally doesn't make it so that you can just keep eating until the stomach expands to the point where it triggers the stretch receptors. If you have 2 eggs, bacon, and sausage for breakfast and some water and nothing else, you are just as likely to be ravenously hungry as if you were to eat the same amount in calories of spaghetti, toast, oat meal, cereal, orange juice, etc two hours later.

"While the intricasies of the bio-chemical and psychological processes are interesting, they do not in any way indicate that the physics of life are different from the physics of say an internal combustion engine."

Thank you for that completely irrelevant point. Oh, well, yeah. Bio-chemistry is interesting and shit, although I'm not going to incorporate any information on bio-chemistry or demonstrate I know anything about it or how it pertains to this topic, but I'm going to sit here with my thumb up my ass jacking off to the naked emperor and say that it's interesting but still default to this idiotic notion that we get fat because we just can't control our eating and we are energy in/ energy out vessels with no regulatory mechanisms that determine how we use energy or our propensities to expend energy under certain circumstances and to conserve it during other times. It's all just minor details. Nothing significant. Just kind of fun little trivia and factoids. The main thing is trying to consciously subvert all the "intricacies" and crudely alter your bulk caloric intake inspite of these "intricate" bio-chemical processes, like, I don't hormones, that are so easily controlled and totally can't overwhelm your consciousness and take over. That's so obviously the more reasonable approach. It's controlling hormones, it's controlling calories. Just do everything assbackwards long enough and it will all work out eventually.

Oh yeah, and I totally think that bio-chemistry and psychology make the laws of physics different for humans. Fuck you. Read my post and you see that I properly incorporate the laws of thermodynamics to support my points rather than just saying "laws of physics" as some buzzword like a jackass.

Your posts in response to my post, which actually had some thought out points and research put into it, have comprised of nothing more than mundane fallacious arguments and entirely baseless assertions assumed to be self-evident, which they are not, that I have already addressed and that you would realize I have already addressed if you would bother to read my post.

You keep on rambling that there is a causal link between consuming calories and gaining weight as if it were self-evident while being the creator and moderator of a website called rational skeptics society. "Well, you see here. Teenage boys consume more calories than they expend and that causes them to gain muscle, lose fat, increase in strength, increase in height, increase in penis size, have a deeper voice, etc. So what we all need to do now is consume just as many more calories than we need as teenage boys so we can all get bigger and stronger. The problem with menopausal women isn't their hormones or anything. That's just trivial intricacy. It's that they aren't consuming as many calories as they should like teenage boys. See? It's empirical evidence and reasoning. We evolved to use calories to get big and strong so we could survive and kick ass. It logically follows that it's the calories that are the source of being able to kick ass. Science and reasoning bitches!" The quoted segment is me applying your same reasoning to another situation.

Sorry, DVR. Being a dumbass while acting like you are right about something you know jack shit about doesn't make you clever or insightful or intellectual. It makes you a pompous douche. You can try to avoid this all you want, but you are still a schmuck. Correlation does not equal causation no matter how many creations you pwn. If you can't see that you making the same fallacies that fundamentalists do, acting like condescending asshole isn't going to help. It's going to make you look like a putz.
read the words of a wise intercourseman
User avatar
Intercourseman72
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:57 am
Location: Austin, Texas
Reputation point: 541

Re: The Tautology of Calories In/Calories Out explained

Unread postby UnwantedSunbeam » Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:48 pm

So it seems to me that the menu in McDs will need to be about 29 pages now. If there are to include all of the information on ICMs posts for food nutrition.

I still am at a loss why a basic calories in/out system is not a good guide for the layman?

Similarly I know I put fuel in car, car goes. I have a limited knowledge of the internal workings of the car.
One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?" was his response. "I don't know", Alice answered. "Then", said the cat, "It doesn't matter.”
User avatar
UnwantedSunbeam
 
Posts: 812
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:31 pm
Reputation point: 1287

Re: The Tautology of Calories In/Calories Out explained

Unread postby Azmodan Kijur » Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:48 pm

It is good enough for the layman. You cannot gain weight if you do not eat over your fuel requirements. It's as simple as that. The difficulty comes in:

1. Telling people what their actual requirements are (their optimum caloric intake).

2. Getting them to understand what the number above means - that they should not eat over that number. They can do so, but you need to short it at some point if you go over it at another.

3. Get people to understand that 99.9% of everything consumed has calories. No such thing as something having "only X calories". All calories count.

4. Getting people to be brutally honest about the amount of calories that they are consuming. Seriously, too many people that I have coached on the matter are terrible when it comes to counting their calories. For example, one woman I know was convinced that, because her snacks consist of fruit, then she's right on track in terms of diet. No, she's on track in terms of nutrition, she's still blowing her diet. Eating a banana mid-morning means putting 100 calories into your body. Nothing wrong with that - except that it counts toward the days total. She's a short woman and women have a 12 multiplier per pound. At her optimum, she should be about 120 pounds - that's 1,440 calories in total a day. A banana in the morning and an apple in the afternoon between meals will gobble up (on average) 170 - 200 calories. That's 11.8% of her daily intake. In a snack.

5. Convincing people that the portion sizes at fast food joints are not just out of proportion - they are grossly unrealistic. The old burger and fries deal. A small burger at A&W with the small fries (no drink) is 660 calories. That's a very small burger and shit-all in fries. For the woman above, that's 45.8% of her daily intake. Most people will tell you that it's not a lot of food and they would seemingly be correct - physically it isn't a lot. But calorically, it is. I've heard people actually argue about these caloric readings - like the restaurants are over-estimating their food. Overestimating? If anything, they'd be biased to underestimate. Others argue that if the portion sizes are that out of whack, then why do restaurants sell them? Easy - people demand them and there's money to be made. The restaurant has no reason to deny you more food if you want it. It's your money and your body after all. "People wouldn't hurt themselves knowingly like that!" some will say - I say welcome to humanity. Alcohol, anyone? How about some crack-cocaine? If the argument boils down to why people would hurt themselves, you've lost before you started.

6. Getting people to stop making stupid excuses for eating more. My uncle on my father's side of the family scoffs at calories. "Can't tell me I can't eat that" or "They don't think I can eat all of that - HA!". I'm serious. The man is 5' 4" and weighs 260 pounds. He looks like lard come to life. He waddles as he walks and labors to breathe as he eats. He takes calorie readings as a dare. Yes, I'm still serious. People look at health advice and actually balk at it thinking they are the exception to that rule or requirement. Calories? Causing fatness? HA! I'm big boned, that's all! It's genetic! It runs in the family! It's the HFCS, I tells ya! My friend, John Doe, eats whatever he wants and is always thin, so the calorie stuff is wrong!

Dozens of excuses - all of them designed to shift the blame for weight to anyone but themselves. It's my families genes that are at fault, it's the mega-corporations that are to blame, that's all just hearsay and myth anyway. The list goes on. Convincing people that they are wrong is frighteningly difficult, partially because they have internal defense mechanisms and partially because the culture around them is a sounding wall for their own misconceptions. Look at the TV ads sometime - diet pills, exercise machines guaranteed to shave those pounds, creams, shows spreading misinformation. When you have people seriously considering surgery (gastrointestinal bypass) to stop themselves from eating, you know the lure of food is strong and the power of self-persuasion is immense.

******

That's why, Sunbeam. If only it were so simple. Hell, even my father was dubious with the evidence of reducing calories (myself and my brother) staring him in the face. Took some time, but the results were convincing.
Last edited by Azmodan Kijur on Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Azmodan Kijur
Chat Moderator
Chat Moderator
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:29 pm
Reputation point: 2055

Next

Return to Science and Technology



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

cron
[Valid Atom 1.0]