Sun 18 Jul, 2021 8:06 am
GPSGuided wrote:CasualNerd wrote:I think the " calories in calories out" model is simplistic and flawed because we know for sure that the body reacts to different types of food. There are plenty of healthy omnivores and plenty of overweight vegetarians, it's not that simple.
Want to rewrite principles in physics?
Sun 18 Jul, 2021 11:32 am
GPSGuided wrote:Want to rewrite principles in physics?
Tue 20 Jul, 2021 7:39 am
MrWalker wrote:CasualNerd is quite correct. Its biology not physics.
Tue 20 Jul, 2021 8:29 am
GPSGuided wrote:MrWalker wrote:CasualNerd is quite correct. Its biology not physics.
At the core of biology, it’s physics.
All that insulin resistance etc and etc are subset events under a basic caloric in-out framework. Clinically no individual under caloric negative balance can maintain the same weight. Those research knowledge are such good excuses for those who aren’t willing to put the hard work into weight loss, and great for the profit making diet industry.
Tue 20 Jul, 2021 8:43 am
MrWalker wrote:GPSGuided wrote:MrWalker wrote:CasualNerd is quite correct. Its biology not physics.
At the core of biology, it’s physics.
All that insulin resistance etc and etc are subset events under a basic caloric in-out framework. Clinically no individual under caloric negative balance can maintain the same weight. Those research knowledge are such good excuses for those who aren’t willing to put the hard work into weight loss, and great for the profit making diet industry.
I agree that if you don't eat at all then you will lose weight, but beyond that it's not so simple.
The number of calories you need each day is based on the average BMR (basal metabolic rate). This is the amount of energy you use up while resting (i.e the energy needed just to keep your heart beating, brain functioning, etc). The BMR accounts for about 70% of your daily calorie expenditure. But like any biological value BMR has wide variability. A standard rule of thumb is that most biological values (height, heart rate, hemoglobin value, etc) have a coefficient of variation of about 20%. That means that about 1/6th of people will be 20% higher than the average and 1/6th will be 20% lower than the average. Within our bushwalkers here, there would be some of us who have a BMR 50% higher than others.
The effect of this is that if you feed a group of people identical diets, some will lose weight, some will maintain weight, and some will gain weight. Then there are factors that can turn your normal BMR up and down. I think this is what CasualNerd was referring to. Carbohydrates, fat and protein have affects on your BMR and can increase or decrease it, so that some types of diets can make it harder or easier to lose weight, while maintaining the same calorie intake.
So the simple idea of calories in and calories expended ignores this huge individual variation.
Tue 20 Jul, 2021 9:57 am
stry wrote:MrWalker wrote:GPSGuided wrote:At the core of biology, it’s physics.
All that insulin resistance etc and etc are subset events under a basic caloric in-out framework. Clinically no individual under caloric negative balance can maintain the same weight. Those research knowledge are such good excuses for those who aren’t willing to put the hard work into weight loss, and great for the profit making diet industry.
I agree that if you don't eat at all then you will lose weight, but beyond that it's not so simple.
The number of calories you need each day is based on the average BMR (basal metabolic rate). This is the amount of energy you use up while resting (i.e the energy needed just to keep your heart beating, brain functioning, etc). The BMR accounts for about 70% of your daily calorie expenditure. But like any biological value BMR has wide variability. A standard rule of thumb is that most biological values (height, heart rate, hemoglobin value, etc) have a coefficient of variation of about 20%. That means that about 1/6th of people will be 20% higher than the average and 1/6th will be 20% lower than the average. Within our bushwalkers here, there would be some of us who have a BMR 50% higher than others.
The effect of this is that if you feed a group of people identical diets, some will lose weight, some will maintain weight, and some will gain weight. Then there are factors that can turn your normal BMR up and down. I think this is what CasualNerd was referring to. Carbohydrates, fat and protein have affects on your BMR and can increase or decrease it, so that some types of diets can make it harder or easier to lose weight, while maintaining the same calorie intake.
So the simple idea of calories in and calories expended ignores this huge individual variation.
Way too much complication going on in this thread.
GPSGuided's use of the word "individual" in the penultimate sentence of his commonsense post seems to have been overlooked.
Tue 20 Jul, 2021 10:01 am
GPSGuided wrote:MrWalker wrote:CasualNerd is quite correct. Its biology not physics.
At the core of biology, it’s physics.
All that insulin resistance etc and etc are subset events under a basic caloric in-out framework. Clinically no individual under caloric negative balance can maintain the same weight. Those research knowledge are such good excuses for those who aren’t willing to put the hard work into weight loss, and great for the profit making diet industry.
Tue 20 Jul, 2021 10:36 am
Tue 20 Jul, 2021 8:17 pm
Lamont wrote:GPSGuided wrote:MrWalker wrote:CasualNerd is quite correct. Its biology not physics.
At the core of biology, it’s physics.
All that insulin resistance etc and etc are subset events under a basic caloric in-out framework. Clinically no individual under caloric negative balance can maintain the same weight. Those research knowledge are such good excuses for those who aren’t willing to put the hard work into weight loss, and great for the profit making diet industry.
Yep. Spot on.
Tue 20 Jul, 2021 10:07 pm
Wed 21 Jul, 2021 9:02 am
MrWalker wrote:
Sorry about the Biology.
But the use of "individual" still doesn't make it correct. A single individual may find that their BMR varies due to the type of diet, as CasualNerd mentioned.
So a given individual might gain weight on one diet, but lose weight on a diet of exactly the same calories, but with a different distribution of fat, protein and carbohydrate, or even just by eating the main meal at different times of the day.
north-north-west wrote:
To an extent. But those "subset events" affect the calorie out part of the equation. Hence the individual issues while on the same diet/exercise regimen.
© Bushwalk Australia and contributors 2007-2013.