FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > 8 fat loss mistakes I know you're doing
8 fat loss mistakes I know you're doing
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
 | |||
"9. Eating like a family of 4 and wondering why the scales don't go down. ")Yes, that is also another reason too  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"I watched a fun video from coach greg, here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhjclYbF80E and he talked about 8 fat loss mistakes, that he knows that your are doing, can you name more? 1 Expecting no setbacks 2 Exercise your way out 3 weighing once a week 4 Relying on will power 5 Not facilitating exercising 6 Not lifting weights 7 Trying to eat too healthy 8 Losing weight too fast I agree especially nr 8, that is losing the weight too fast, that is why one have to diet slowly so that your body dont get used to the calorie and plateau "What does number 5 mean ?? | |||
| |||
"Not getting enough sleep can hinder you " Yup thats my issue atm  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Not getting enough sleep can hinder you Yup thats my issue atm "I feel for you | |||
"Lol I was guilty of 8. 8 stone loss in about 5 months, year later I’m still slim though "Wow that’s amazing well done! | |||
"Lol I was guilty of 8. 8 stone loss in about 5 months, year later I’m still slim though
Wow that’s amazing well done! "I made half the ‘mistakes’ in this list lol didn’t lift weights or exercise did it purely via calorie restriction and limiting carbs! | |||
| |||
 | |||
"Lol I was guilty of 8. 8 stone loss in about 5 months, year later I’m still slim though
Wow that’s amazing well done!
I made half the ‘mistakes’ in this list lol didn’t lift weights or exercise did it purely via calorie restriction and limiting carbs! "It just shows you how there isn’t just a set of rules to follow, everyone is different with how their body responds | |||
"Lol I was guilty of 8. 8 stone loss in about 5 months, year later I’m still slim though
Wow that’s amazing well done!
I made half the ‘mistakes’ in this list lol didn’t lift weights or exercise did it purely via calorie restriction and limiting carbs!
It just shows you how there isn’t just a set of rules to follow, everyone is different with how their body responds "Definitely! What works for one person won’t work for another | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"7." ^Len Goodman | |||
| |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you " Law of thermodynamics is not the be all and end all and there are lots of complicated elements at play that can conspire to hinder or prevent people from reducing their intake of food. It's never as simple as saying put the fcuking fork down. Eating more is not always a bad thing. Depends what you eat
C. | |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you " Btw, are you the artist formally known as thiccasfuck? C. | |||
| |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you Btw, are you the artist formally known as thiccasfuck? C. " Yes, had to change names as a stalker appeared | |||
"I watched a fun video from coach greg, here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhjclYbF80E and he talked about 8 fat loss mistakes, that he knows that your are doing, can you name more? 1 Expecting no setbacks 2 Exercise your way out 3 weighing once a week 4 Relying on will power 5 Not facilitating exercising 6 Not lifting weights 7 Trying to eat too healthy 8 Losing weight too fast I agree especially nr 8, that is losing the weight too fast, that is why one have to diet slowly so that your body dont get used to the calorie and plateau "Eat fewer grains and cut out sugar. C | |||
| |||
"11 equating your weight with other peoples shape. - when you think someone looks good it is not their weight you’re thinking of, it’s their shape. Eat less unhealthy foods and exercise more of those areas you wish to shape up. Or don’t, it’s a very personal choice. 11 Don’t make it an issues of self worth." Agree with this, I constantly compare myself with others at the same weight and weight loss and it gets a little demotivating. 12 not taking measurements I have lost just over 4 stone, can't see it in the mirror but measurements do not lie | |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you Law of thermodynamics is not the be all and end all and there are lots of complicated elements at play that can conspire to hinder or prevent people from reducing their intake of food. It's never as simple as saying put the fcuking fork down. Eating more is not always a bad thing. Depends what you eat
C. "I’d disagree Eating less always works, if you can do it Instead of people saying “eating less doesn’t work for me” - they should be honest and say “I really struggle with eating less” No one is immune to the effects of starvation | |||
"*Slimming clubs are designed for you to lose some weight but never sustain it, hence always returning. The word Syns is such a toxic word to use when relating to food and health " Agree. Hate the approach they use | |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you Btw, are you the artist formally known as thiccasfuck? C. Yes, had to change names as a stalker appeared " The rebranding is definitely a step in the right direction. C. | |||
| |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you Law of thermodynamics is not the be all and end all and there are lots of complicated elements at play that can conspire to hinder or prevent people from reducing their intake of food. It's never as simple as saying put the fcuking fork down. Eating more is not always a bad thing. Depends what you eat
C.
I’d disagree
Eating less always works, if you can do it
Instead of people saying “eating less doesn’t work for me” - they should be honest and say “I really struggle with eating less”
No one is immune to the effects of starvation "Yeah, those starvation exercises of the 40s were great. The Minnesota one had one of the subjects taking three fingers off his hand with an axe. So do you walk around in constant calorie deficit? C. | |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you Law of thermodynamics is not the be all and end all and there are lots of complicated elements at play that can conspire to hinder or prevent people from reducing their intake of food. It's never as simple as saying put the fcuking fork down. Eating more is not always a bad thing. Depends what you eat
C.
I’d disagree
Eating less always works, if you can do it
Instead of people saying “eating less doesn’t work for me” - they should be honest and say “I really struggle with eating less”
No one is immune to the effects of starvation "I think what C means is less in quantity vs less in calories. Someone could theoretically eat "less" but consume more calories and eat "more" and consume less calories. | |||
| |||
| |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you Law of thermodynamics is not the be all and end all and there are lots of complicated elements at play that can conspire to hinder or prevent people from reducing their intake of food. It's never as simple as saying put the fcuking fork down. Eating more is not always a bad thing. Depends what you eat
C.
I’d disagree
Eating less always works, if you can do it
Instead of people saying “eating less doesn’t work for me” - they should be honest and say “I really struggle with eating less”
No one is immune to the effects of starvation
Yeah, those starvation exercises of the 40s were great. The Minnesota one had one of the subjects taking three fingers off his hand with an axe.
So do you walk around in constant calorie deficit?
C. "I don’t, only if I need to for competition. If you know anyone that can break the laws of thermodynamics and eat less calories and still gain weight, send them to the nearest hospital or university for study. Their body might be able to fix world hunger But I can see it’s an issue we won’t agree on. As soon as someone think the laws of the universe don’t apply to their weight loss story, I can tell it’s a pointless discussion. So we can agree to disagree on it | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you Law of thermodynamics is not the be all and end all and there are lots of complicated elements at play that can conspire to hinder or prevent people from reducing their intake of food. It's never as simple as saying put the fcuking fork down. Eating more is not always a bad thing. Depends what you eat
C.
I’d disagree
Eating less always works, if you can do it
Instead of people saying “eating less doesn’t work for me” - they should be honest and say “I really struggle with eating less”
No one is immune to the effects of starvation "600 calories a day. (No lies, no cheating, no cheat days, high protein low carb, so obsessed it was medically disordered eating). Either 10km run or an hours strength training every day. Weight loss was negligible. More often than not I would gain. Eat less more more works (mostly) if you're male... Hormonal changes and issues generally make consistent weight loss much harder for women and if they have hormonal/endocrine issues (diagnosed or undiagnosed) it's even harder again still... | |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you Law of thermodynamics is not the be all and end all and there are lots of complicated elements at play that can conspire to hinder or prevent people from reducing their intake of food. It's never as simple as saying put the fcuking fork down. Eating more is not always a bad thing. Depends what you eat
C.
I’d disagree
Eating less always works, if you can do it
Instead of people saying “eating less doesn’t work for me” - they should be honest and say “I really struggle with eating less”
No one is immune to the effects of starvation
Yeah, those starvation exercises of the 40s were great. The Minnesota one had one of the subjects taking three fingers off his hand with an axe.
So do you walk around in constant calorie deficit?
C.
I don’t, only if I need to for competition.
If you know anyone that can break the laws of thermodynamics and eat less calories and still gain weight, send them to the nearest hospital or university for study. Their body might be able to fix world hunger
But I can see it’s an issue we won’t agree on. As soon as someone think the laws of the universe don’t apply to their weight loss story, I can tell it’s a pointless discussion. So we can agree to disagree on it "Could you possibly eat less calories and your body store them as fat, instead of turning them into energy? I saw a video of a doctor who put on weight when he hadn't changed anything he did. He explained that the switch that told the body to use the energy or store it was storing it, when it shouldn't be. It was quite interesting to watch. I've been given medication and told I'll put on weight. I don't know why that happens or how, as no one explains it. | |||
| |||
"Only one mistake I'm making. Too many calories in." A guy I used to work with said he had 2 issues: 1. A slow metabolism 2. Really fast pie eating hands | |||
| |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you Law of thermodynamics is not the be all and end all and there are lots of complicated elements at play that can conspire to hinder or prevent people from reducing their intake of food. It's never as simple as saying put the fcuking fork down. Eating more is not always a bad thing. Depends what you eat
C.
I’d disagree
Eating less always works, if you can do it
Instead of people saying “eating less doesn’t work for me” - they should be honest and say “I really struggle with eating less”
No one is immune to the effects of starvation
I think what C means is less in quantity vs less in calories. Someone could theoretically eat "less" but consume more calories and eat "more" and consume less calories. "Yep, calorific availability is a big thing with food. What's quoted on labels is horrendous inaccurate, particularly when it comes to what the body extracts. My comment earlier was intended to emphasise that we are not in control of all of the parameters. Some people have longer large intestines than others. This means they will extract more calories from food. These people, if they're going down the route of simple calorie restriction (less overall calories per day, not IF), are likely to need to starve themselves more as a result of their genes. Not an optimum approach imho. If food has more fibre, caloric availability is less. Take freshly squeezed orange juice vs whole oranges as an example. Then there's the microbes in your gut. The variety has been shown to be of relevance. It's bloody complicated. Very very few people can starve themselves for the rest of their natural existence. I can't see it as being the way forward and not a viable lifestyle change. Does calorie restriction make you live longer? Maybe. Depends how you do it. Eating differently may naturally suppress a person's appetite. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
C. | |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you Law of thermodynamics is not the be all and end all and there are lots of complicated elements at play that can conspire to hinder or prevent people from reducing their intake of food. It's never as simple as saying put the fcuking fork down. Eating more is not always a bad thing. Depends what you eat
C.
I’d disagree
Eating less always works, if you can do it
Instead of people saying “eating less doesn’t work for me” - they should be honest and say “I really struggle with eating less”
No one is immune to the effects of starvation
Yeah, those starvation exercises of the 40s were great. The Minnesota one had one of the subjects taking three fingers off his hand with an axe.
So do you walk around in constant calorie deficit?
C.
I don’t, only if I need to for competition.
If you know anyone that can break the laws of thermodynamics and eat less calories and still gain weight, send them to the nearest hospital or university for study. Their body might be able to fix world hunger
But I can see it’s an issue we won’t agree on. As soon as someone think the laws of the universe don’t apply to their weight loss story, I can tell it’s a pointless discussion. So we can agree to disagree on it
Could you possibly eat less calories and your body store them as fat, instead of turning them into energy? I saw a video of a doctor who put on weight when he hadn't changed anything he did. He explained that the switch that told the body to use the energy or store it was storing it, when it shouldn't be.
It was quite interesting to watch.
I've been given medication and told I'll put on weight. I don't know why that happens or how, as no one explains it.
"I could possibly see this as happening if a person's body becomes increasingly insulin resistant. C. | |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you Law of thermodynamics is not the be all and end all and there are lots of complicated elements at play that can conspire to hinder or prevent people from reducing their intake of food. It's never as simple as saying put the fcuking fork down. Eating more is not always a bad thing. Depends what you eat
C.
I’d disagree
Eating less always works, if you can do it
Instead of people saying “eating less doesn’t work for me” - they should be honest and say “I really struggle with eating less”
No one is immune to the effects of starvation
Yeah, those starvation exercises of the 40s were great. The Minnesota one had one of the subjects taking three fingers off his hand with an axe.
So do you walk around in constant calorie deficit?
C.
I don’t, only if I need to for competition.
If you know anyone that can break the laws of thermodynamics and eat less calories and still gain weight, send them to the nearest hospital or university for study. Their body might be able to fix world hunger
But I can see it’s an issue we won’t agree on. As soon as someone think the laws of the universe don’t apply to their weight loss story, I can tell it’s a pointless discussion. So we can agree to disagree on it
Could you possibly eat less calories and your body store them as fat, instead of turning them into energy? I saw a video of a doctor who put on weight when he hadn't changed anything he did. He explained that the switch that told the body to use the energy or store it was storing it, when it shouldn't be.
It was quite interesting to watch.
I've been given medication and told I'll put on weight. I don't know why that happens or how, as no one explains it.
"If your body turns food into fat, you won’t have energy to stay alive. So that energy will be pulled from fat, muscle, glycogen stores etc etc As for your medication, it’s most likely having an effect on your appetite which makes you eat more without realising, or your energy levels, which makes you move less without realising Ultimately, as much as people want to complicate it, it comes down to energy balance Your body runs on calories Food is calories Your body is also made of calories Eat too much, you store the extra as body mass Eat too little, your body uses it’s own calories to keep balance. | |||
"Only one mistake I'm making. Too many calories in. A guy I used to work with said he had 2 issues: 1. A slow metabolism 2. Really fast pie eating hands " Those damned fast hands
I don't eat that much volume wise, but I drink loads of Lucozade and eat the wrong things. I'll have chicken, brown rice and salad for dinner, washed down with a bottle of Cherry Lucozade, then eat a bar of chocolate while I'm waiting for sleep time.
I honestly don't know how I'm not diabetic.
| |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you Law of thermodynamics is not the be all and end all and there are lots of complicated elements at play that can conspire to hinder or prevent people from reducing their intake of food. It's never as simple as saying put the fcuking fork down. Eating more is not always a bad thing. Depends what you eat
C.
I’d disagree
Eating less always works, if you can do it
Instead of people saying “eating less doesn’t work for me” - they should be honest and say “I really struggle with eating less”
No one is immune to the effects of starvation
Yeah, those starvation exercises of the 40s were great. The Minnesota one had one of the subjects taking three fingers off his hand with an axe.
So do you walk around in constant calorie deficit?
C.
I don’t, only if I need to for competition.
If you know anyone that can break the laws of thermodynamics and eat less calories and still gain weight, send them to the nearest hospital or university for study. Their body might be able to fix world hunger
But I can see it’s an issue we won’t agree on. As soon as someone think the laws of the universe don’t apply to their weight loss story, I can tell it’s a pointless discussion. So we can agree to disagree on it
Could you possibly eat less calories and your body store them as fat, instead of turning them into energy? I saw a video of a doctor who put on weight when he hadn't changed anything he did. He explained that the switch that told the body to use the energy or store it was storing it, when it shouldn't be.
It was quite interesting to watch.
I've been given medication and told I'll put on weight. I don't know why that happens or how, as no one explains it.
"I believe you probably get something like 90-95% of the results by simply eating less and cutting out junk food and alcohol. Once you begin to optimise that final and tough 5% for competition or peak performance I think paying more attention to the science of what you eat matters but for most of us it’s unhelpful to get into that. Like a car we treat it right and maintain it and it’s good, we don’t take it to be tuned by an F1 expert. | |||
| |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you Law of thermodynamics is not the be all and end all and there are lots of complicated elements at play that can conspire to hinder or prevent people from reducing their intake of food. It's never as simple as saying put the fcuking fork down. Eating more is not always a bad thing. Depends what you eat
C.
I’d disagree
Eating less always works, if you can do it
Instead of people saying “eating less doesn’t work for me” - they should be honest and say “I really struggle with eating less”
No one is immune to the effects of starvation
Yeah, those starvation exercises of the 40s were great. The Minnesota one had one of the subjects taking three fingers off his hand with an axe.
So do you walk around in constant calorie deficit?
C.
I don’t, only if I need to for competition.
If you know anyone that can break the laws of thermodynamics and eat less calories and still gain weight, send them to the nearest hospital or university for study. Their body might be able to fix world hunger
But I can see it’s an issue we won’t agree on. As soon as someone think the laws of the universe don’t apply to their weight loss story, I can tell it’s a pointless discussion. So we can agree to disagree on it
Could you possibly eat less calories and your body store them as fat, instead of turning them into energy? I saw a video of a doctor who put on weight when he hadn't changed anything he did. He explained that the switch that told the body to use the energy or store it was storing it, when it shouldn't be.
It was quite interesting to watch.
I've been given medication and told I'll put on weight. I don't know why that happens or how, as no one explains it.
If your body turns food into fat, you won’t have energy to stay alive. So that energy will be pulled from fat, muscle, glycogen stores etc etc
As for your medication, it’s most likely having an effect on your appetite which makes you eat more without realising, or your energy levels, which makes you move less without realising
Ultimately, as much as people want to complicate it, it comes down to energy balance
Your body runs on calories
Food is calories
Your body is also made of calories
Eat too much, you store the extra as body mass
Eat too little, your body uses it’s own calories to keep balance."The doctor I mentioned said he hadn't changed anything about his diet and exercise. It was his body that was using the calories differently, or something like that. I can't remember the science behind it but it changed the way he treated his patients, and stopped judging them. | |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you Law of thermodynamics is not the be all and end all and there are lots of complicated elements at play that can conspire to hinder or prevent people from reducing their intake of food. It's never as simple as saying put the fcuking fork down. Eating more is not always a bad thing. Depends what you eat
C.
I’d disagree
Eating less always works, if you can do it
Instead of people saying “eating less doesn’t work for me” - they should be honest and say “I really struggle with eating less”
No one is immune to the effects of starvation
Yeah, those starvation exercises of the 40s were great. The Minnesota one had one of the subjects taking three fingers off his hand with an axe.
So do you walk around in constant calorie deficit?
C.
I don’t, only if I need to for competition.
If you know anyone that can break the laws of thermodynamics and eat less calories and still gain weight, send them to the nearest hospital or university for study. Their body might be able to fix world hunger
But I can see it’s an issue we won’t agree on. As soon as someone think the laws of the universe don’t apply to their weight loss story, I can tell it’s a pointless discussion. So we can agree to disagree on it
Could you possibly eat less calories and your body store them as fat, instead of turning them into energy? I saw a video of a doctor who put on weight when he hadn't changed anything he did. He explained that the switch that told the body to use the energy or store it was storing it, when it shouldn't be.
It was quite interesting to watch.
I've been given medication and told I'll put on weight. I don't know why that happens or how, as no one explains it.
If your body turns food into fat, you won’t have energy to stay alive. So that energy will be pulled from fat, muscle, glycogen stores etc etc
As for your medication, it’s most likely having an effect on your appetite which makes you eat more without realising, or your energy levels, which makes you move less without realising
Ultimately, as much as people want to complicate it, it comes down to energy balance
Your body runs on calories
Food is calories
Your body is also made of calories
Eat too much, you store the extra as body mass
Eat too little, your body uses it’s own calories to keep balance.
The doctor I mentioned said he hadn't changed anything about his diet and exercise. It was his body that was using the calories differently, or something like that. I can't remember the science behind it but it changed the way he treated his patients, and stopped judging them.
"Tiny changes in your life style can make big changes. I’m more likely to believe that he ate more, or moved less, without him realising, then believing his body broke the laws of the universe by making energy out of thin air | |||
"i've been given medication and told I'll put on weight. I don't know why that happens or how, as no one explains it." Generally, medication related weight gain is down to either the medication; - increasing hunger signals (gilarubin production) - slowing down your metabolism - causing fluid retention Generally a look round online can point to what your medication is actually likely to be doing | |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you Law of thermodynamics is not the be all and end all and there are lots of complicated elements at play that can conspire to hinder or prevent people from reducing their intake of food. It's never as simple as saying put the fcuking fork down. Eating more is not always a bad thing. Depends what you eat
C.
I’d disagree
Eating less always works, if you can do it
Instead of people saying “eating less doesn’t work for me” - they should be honest and say “I really struggle with eating less”
No one is immune to the effects of starvation
Yeah, those starvation exercises of the 40s were great. The Minnesota one had one of the subjects taking three fingers off his hand with an axe.
So do you walk around in constant calorie deficit?
C.
I don’t, only if I need to for competition.
If you know anyone that can break the laws of thermodynamics and eat less calories and still gain weight, send them to the nearest hospital or university for study. Their body might be able to fix world hunger
But I can see it’s an issue we won’t agree on. As soon as someone think the laws of the universe don’t apply to their weight loss story, I can tell it’s a pointless discussion. So we can agree to disagree on it "Having a physics(ish) backgrounds, I'm all signed up to the first law of thermodynamics. However, I can see that it's not as simple as that. I'd like to see you work a purist thermodynamics approach for the rest of your life reducing your calorific intake by the necessary amount. People starve and weight comes off. Most of the time. It's not sustainable apart from for a rare few. We will always disagree on this, but I like to put a different view across for all the people who are flogging themselves to death, not lying to themselves about their diet, and still not getting the results they want. For those folks, it's not a simple matter of not eating. C. | |||
"Only one mistake I'm making. Too many calories in. A guy I used to work with said he had 2 issues: 1. A slow metabolism 2. Really fast pie eating hands Those damned fast hands
I don't eat that much volume wise, but I drink loads of Lucozade and eat the wrong things. I'll have chicken, brown rice and salad for dinner, washed down with a bottle of Cherry Lucozade, then eat a bar of chocolate while I'm waiting for sleep time.
I honestly don't know how I'm not diabetic.
"Doesn’t the lucozade affect your stomach horribly (is it ibs?), plus surely it plays havoc with your blood sugar levels, this affecting your energy levels etc? | |||
| |||
"Ignoring your non-exercise activity thermogenesis. Usually is simple to increase it but is often overlooked. Not appreciating that monthly hormones can make to feel amazing one week in the gym and shit the next. You're not failing it's your hormones, don't give up." Yes! If you haven't already have a read of Roar (women are not small men) by Dr Stacey Simm. It's fascinating | |||
| |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you Law of thermodynamics is not the be all and end all and there are lots of complicated elements at play that can conspire to hinder or prevent people from reducing their intake of food. It's never as simple as saying put the fcuking fork down. Eating more is not always a bad thing. Depends what you eat
C.
I’d disagree
Eating less always works, if you can do it
Instead of people saying “eating less doesn’t work for me” - they should be honest and say “I really struggle with eating less”
No one is immune to the effects of starvation
Yeah, those starvation exercises of the 40s were great. The Minnesota one had one of the subjects taking three fingers off his hand with an axe.
So do you walk around in constant calorie deficit?
C.
I don’t, only if I need to for competition.
If you know anyone that can break the laws of thermodynamics and eat less calories and still gain weight, send them to the nearest hospital or university for study. Their body might be able to fix world hunger
But I can see it’s an issue we won’t agree on. As soon as someone think the laws of the universe don’t apply to their weight loss story, I can tell it’s a pointless discussion. So we can agree to disagree on it
Could you possibly eat less calories and your body store them as fat, instead of turning them into energy? I saw a video of a doctor who put on weight when he hadn't changed anything he did. He explained that the switch that told the body to use the energy or store it was storing it, when it shouldn't be.
It was quite interesting to watch.
I've been given medication and told I'll put on weight. I don't know why that happens or how, as no one explains it.
If your body turns food into fat, you won’t have energy to stay alive. So that energy will be pulled from fat, muscle, glycogen stores etc etc
As for your medication, it’s most likely having an effect on your appetite which makes you eat more without realising, or your energy levels, which makes you move less without realising
Ultimately, as much as people want to complicate it, it comes down to energy balance
Your body runs on calories
Food is calories
Your body is also made of calories
Eat too much, you store the extra as body mass
Eat too little, your body uses it’s own calories to keep balance."Energy can come from Ketones. That's not in the fat stores. C. | |||
"Just as a tiny example, let’s say you stop taking the stairs at work and take the lift And let’s say that’s 100 less calories you burn x5 a week That’s 7.5 lbs at the end of the year in extra calories. Isn’t the butterfly effect? Or something? Tiny changes now create huge changes down the line So take the stairs " That's exactly what neat (non-exercise activity thermogenesis) is about | |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you Law of thermodynamics is not the be all and end all and there are lots of complicated elements at play that can conspire to hinder or prevent people from reducing their intake of food. It's never as simple as saying put the fcuking fork down. Eating more is not always a bad thing. Depends what you eat
C.
I’d disagree
Eating less always works, if you can do it
Instead of people saying “eating less doesn’t work for me” - they should be honest and say “I really struggle with eating less”
No one is immune to the effects of starvation
Yeah, those starvation exercises of the 40s were great. The Minnesota one had one of the subjects taking three fingers off his hand with an axe.
So do you walk around in constant calorie deficit?
C.
I don’t, only if I need to for competition.
If you know anyone that can break the laws of thermodynamics and eat less calories and still gain weight, send them to the nearest hospital or university for study. Their body might be able to fix world hunger
But I can see it’s an issue we won’t agree on. As soon as someone think the laws of the universe don’t apply to their weight loss story, I can tell it’s a pointless discussion. So we can agree to disagree on it
Could you possibly eat less calories and your body store them as fat, instead of turning them into energy? I saw a video of a doctor who put on weight when he hadn't changed anything he did. He explained that the switch that told the body to use the energy or store it was storing it, when it shouldn't be.
It was quite interesting to watch.
I've been given medication and told I'll put on weight. I don't know why that happens or how, as no one explains it.
If your body turns food into fat, you won’t have energy to stay alive. So that energy will be pulled from fat, muscle, glycogen stores etc etc
As for your medication, it’s most likely having an effect on your appetite which makes you eat more without realising, or your energy levels, which makes you move less without realising
Ultimately, as much as people want to complicate it, it comes down to energy balance
Your body runs on calories
Food is calories
Your body is also made of calories
Eat too much, you store the extra as body mass
Eat too little, your body uses it’s own calories to keep balance.
The doctor I mentioned said he hadn't changed anything about his diet and exercise. It was his body that was using the calories differently, or something like that. I can't remember the science behind it but it changed the way he treated his patients, and stopped judging them.
"I found him. His name is Peter Attia and he talks about metabolic syndrome. I found it interesting to watch and read about. | |||
"Just as a tiny example, let’s say you stop taking the stairs at work and take the lift And let’s say that’s 100 less calories you burn x5 a week That’s 7.5 lbs at the end of the year in extra calories. Isn’t the butterfly effect? Or something? Tiny changes now create huge changes down the line So take the stairs That's exactly what neat (non-exercise activity thermogenesis) is about "Neat is probably the number 1 way to lose weight in terms of exercise. If people moved more generally instead of trying to Jill themselves at a gym, they’d see better success | |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you Law of thermodynamics is not the be all and end all and there are lots of complicated elements at play that can conspire to hinder or prevent people from reducing their intake of food. It's never as simple as saying put the fcuking fork down. Eating more is not always a bad thing. Depends what you eat
C.
I’d disagree
Eating less always works, if you can do it
Instead of people saying “eating less doesn’t work for me” - they should be honest and say “I really struggle with eating less”
No one is immune to the effects of starvation
Yeah, those starvation exercises of the 40s were great. The Minnesota one had one of the subjects taking three fingers off his hand with an axe.
So do you walk around in constant calorie deficit?
C.
I don’t, only if I need to for competition.
If you know anyone that can break the laws of thermodynamics and eat less calories and still gain weight, send them to the nearest hospital or university for study. Their body might be able to fix world hunger
But I can see it’s an issue we won’t agree on. As soon as someone think the laws of the universe don’t apply to their weight loss story, I can tell it’s a pointless discussion. So we can agree to disagree on it
Having a physics(ish) backgrounds, I'm all signed up to the first law of thermodynamics. However, I can see that it's not as simple as that. I'd like to see you work a purist thermodynamics approach for the rest of your life reducing your calorific intake by the necessary amount. People starve and weight comes off. Most of the time. It's not sustainable apart from for a rare few.
We will always disagree on this, but I like to put a different view across for all the people who are flogging themselves to death, not lying to themselves about their diet, and still not getting the results they want. For those folks, it's not a simple matter of not eating.
C. "Ah but because I don't fit his view it's a pointless discussion... And my nutritionist, endocrinologist, gynocologist, neurologist, GP, bariatric surgeon and mental health team are obviously all also wrong. Something like 95% of studies on weight loss are done on men because their hormones don't fluctuate. Hormones play a huge part in how our bodies do and don't burn calories. That's why it's not as simple as in Vs out... | |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you Law of thermodynamics is not the be all and end all and there are lots of complicated elements at play that can conspire to hinder or prevent people from reducing their intake of food. It's never as simple as saying put the fcuking fork down. Eating more is not always a bad thing. Depends what you eat
C.
I’d disagree
Eating less always works, if you can do it
Instead of people saying “eating less doesn’t work for me” - they should be honest and say “I really struggle with eating less”
No one is immune to the effects of starvation
Yeah, those starvation exercises of the 40s were great. The Minnesota one had one of the subjects taking three fingers off his hand with an axe.
So do you walk around in constant calorie deficit?
C.
I don’t, only if I need to for competition.
If you know anyone that can break the laws of thermodynamics and eat less calories and still gain weight, send them to the nearest hospital or university for study. Their body might be able to fix world hunger
But I can see it’s an issue we won’t agree on. As soon as someone think the laws of the universe don’t apply to their weight loss story, I can tell it’s a pointless discussion. So we can agree to disagree on it
Could you possibly eat less calories and your body store them as fat, instead of turning them into energy? I saw a video of a doctor who put on weight when he hadn't changed anything he did. He explained that the switch that told the body to use the energy or store it was storing it, when it shouldn't be.
It was quite interesting to watch.
I've been given medication and told I'll put on weight. I don't know why that happens or how, as no one explains it.
If your body turns food into fat, you won’t have energy to stay alive. So that energy will be pulled from fat, muscle, glycogen stores etc etc
As for your medication, it’s most likely having an effect on your appetite which makes you eat more without realising, or your energy levels, which makes you move less without realising
Ultimately, as much as people want to complicate it, it comes down to energy balance
Your body runs on calories
Food is calories
Your body is also made of calories
Eat too much, you store the extra as body mass
Eat too little, your body uses it’s own calories to keep balance.
The doctor I mentioned said he hadn't changed anything about his diet and exercise. It was his body that was using the calories differently, or something like that. I can't remember the science behind it but it changed the way he treated his patients, and stopped judging them.
"Its the quality of the food you take in, just as much as the amount. You could eat 2000 cal/ day of creme eggs or 2000 cal/day of chicken, rice and salad and the effects would be vastly different. Bioavailability is often overlooked. | |||
| |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you Law of thermodynamics is not the be all and end all and there are lots of complicated elements at play that can conspire to hinder or prevent people from reducing their intake of food. It's never as simple as saying put the fcuking fork down. Eating more is not always a bad thing. Depends what you eat
C.
I’d disagree
Eating less always works, if you can do it
Instead of people saying “eating less doesn’t work for me” - they should be honest and say “I really struggle with eating less”
No one is immune to the effects of starvation "Eating less doesn't work if all you eat is processed shite though. C | |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you Law of thermodynamics is not the be all and end all and there are lots of complicated elements at play that can conspire to hinder or prevent people from reducing their intake of food. It's never as simple as saying put the fcuking fork down. Eating more is not always a bad thing. Depends what you eat
C.
I’d disagree
Eating less always works, if you can do it
Instead of people saying “eating less doesn’t work for me” - they should be honest and say “I really struggle with eating less”
No one is immune to the effects of starvation
Yeah, those starvation exercises of the 40s were great. The Minnesota one had one of the subjects taking three fingers off his hand with an axe.
So do you walk around in constant calorie deficit?
C.
I don’t, only if I need to for competition.
If you know anyone that can break the laws of thermodynamics and eat less calories and still gain weight, send them to the nearest hospital or university for study. Their body might be able to fix world hunger
But I can see it’s an issue we won’t agree on. As soon as someone think the laws of the universe don’t apply to their weight loss story, I can tell it’s a pointless discussion. So we can agree to disagree on it
Could you possibly eat less calories and your body store them as fat, instead of turning them into energy? I saw a video of a doctor who put on weight when he hadn't changed anything he did. He explained that the switch that told the body to use the energy or store it was storing it, when it shouldn't be.
It was quite interesting to watch.
I've been given medication and told I'll put on weight. I don't know why that happens or how, as no one explains it.
If your body turns food into fat, you won’t have energy to stay alive. So that energy will be pulled from fat, muscle, glycogen stores etc etc
As for your medication, it’s most likely having an effect on your appetite which makes you eat more without realising, or your energy levels, which makes you move less without realising
Ultimately, as much as people want to complicate it, it comes down to energy balance
Your body runs on calories
Food is calories
Your body is also made of calories
Eat too much, you store the extra as body mass
Eat too little, your body uses it’s own calories to keep balance.
The doctor I mentioned said he hadn't changed anything about his diet and exercise. It was his body that was using the calories differently, or something like that. I can't remember the science behind it but it changed the way he treated his patients, and stopped judging them.
Its the quality of the food you take in, just as much as the amount. You could eat 2000 cal/ day of creme eggs or 2000 cal/day of chicken, rice and salad and the effects would be vastly different.
Bioavailability is often overlooked."Absolutely this! | |||
" Its the quality of the food you take in, just as much as the amount. You could eat 2000 cal/ day of creme eggs or 2000 cal/day of chicken, rice and salad and the effects would be vastly different. Bioavailability is often overlooked." Bioavailablity is King. It shows why animal based foods are better as you can eat less and satiety is reached quicker. C | |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you Law of thermodynamics is not the be all and end all and there are lots of complicated elements at play that can conspire to hinder or prevent people from reducing their intake of food. It's never as simple as saying put the fcuking fork down. Eating more is not always a bad thing. Depends what you eat
C.
I’d disagree
Eating less always works, if you can do it
Instead of people saying “eating less doesn’t work for me” - they should be honest and say “I really struggle with eating less”
No one is immune to the effects of starvation
Eating less doesn't work if all you eat is processed shite though.
C"Doesn’t it? Why not? | |||
| |||
"These discussions always end up the same and as is so often the case both sides fail to recognise the validity of the others claims. As the artist formally known as Thicc (sorry I can't remember the new name and I've already started typing) says, you cannot break the laws of thermodynamics. However, as others have pointed out there are a number of factors including sleep, stress, gut biology etc that can change and affect how efficiently your body extracts, stores and uses energy.These effects will indeed make it harder for various reasons to loose weight. Some of these reasons are psychological, some are physiological but none change the basic laws of the universe that you cannot create energy from nothing and fat is in its purest sense an energy store - that energy has to come from the food we eat, there is no other method for it to get into the body. Anyone who denies that eating less will lead to losing weight is (as has been said) claiming that the laws of the universe don't apply to them. On the other hand, anyone offering advice on dieting who doesn't acknowledge the roles played by mental health, medication, biology, personality and genetic make up is not going to be of much use. In a technical sense they are 100% correct but that isn't going to help someone who is struggling. As has been said above, different methods work differently for different people. If you have the kind of body that readily adapts to weight training by building muscle then absolutely, lifting weights will give great results, you'll burn a small ammount of calories from the exercise and increasingly more and more as the muscle mass builds as muscles require energy all the time. If you have the kind of body that no matter what you do stays lean, lifting weights will have far less effect, you'll still burn calories during the exercise and a little extra afterwards but the increase in muscle mass and therefore the increase in metabolic rate will be minor. There are similar variations in how people react to CV exercise, this is where a one size fits all approach to exercise doesn't work. It is worth bearing in mind just how little energy is needed to make our bodies move. To lift 1000kg (a tonne) vertically up just 1 metre requires only 2.3kcal. That means a Mars bar contains enough energy to lift a tonne 100 meters in the air - think pushing a small car up a hill. Clearly when we exercise the bulk of the calories burnt are not going into moving our bodies/lifting weights. Actually, we are incredibly inefficient and it is this inefficiency that burns the majority of what we eat and explains why small variations between how efficient peoples bodies are has a much bigger impact on their weight than the amount they move - worth bearing in mind when advising an overweight person to go for a walk. If you swap 2400 calories per day (as marked on your food packaging) made up of wholemeal carbs, raw vegetables and lean protein and replace it with 2400 calories of chocolate you're likely to both metabolise more of the available calories giving more chance of surplas to be stored as fat and feel a great deal less satisfied making snacking (and further weight gain) far more likely. This is where the simple calorie in equation fails. While it absolutely is about energy in minus energy out, the little numbers on the back of food packets are simply not an accurate way of calculating the energy in part of that equation. Eat less, exercise more will always work provided nothing else changes but that last bit rarely holds true. We age, loose muscle mass and despite eating less still put on weight. We think we are eating less but are actually eating different foods. We plan more structured exercise but change our jobs so instead of being on our feet all day we are sat at a desk. All this is without taking into account the affects of mental health. On the subject of mental health, it's interesting that those who believe they have greater self control than others who cannot diet successfully are often wrong, what they have is lower urges that require less shelf control. A person who has been fat most of their life is likely to need far more strength of mind to lose weight than one who has always been slim. That is something worth bearing in mind before we judge others - and not just for weight loss, the same holds true for all addictions and many so called impulsive behavoirs including infidelity. When a person struggles really hard to achieve what they perceive as being easy for others it leads to low self worth and increased desire for behavoirs or substances that make them feel better - food, alcohol, sex etc creating a vicious circle. Again, this doesn't detract from calories in = calories out, but it does suggest that sticking to this mantra is likely to be counterproductive with some people as it simply increases their perception of low self worth. Mr" Well said The method always works, eat less move more The things you do to reach that method are what fail. That’s the tricky part But don’t do yourself a disservice by just assuming eating less doesn’t work because your so special Instead look at what your doing and try to fix what’s going wrong. It’s a very common mindset I see in people trying to lose weight - “ I’m doing everything perfect the method just doesn’t work for me” | |||
| |||
"9. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics and saying eating less doesn’t work for you Law of thermodynamics is not the be all and end all and there are lots of complicated elements at play that can conspire to hinder or prevent people from reducing their intake of food. It's never as simple as saying put the fcuking fork down. Eating more is not always a bad thing. Depends what you eat
C.
I’d disagree
Eating less always works, if you can do it
Instead of people saying “eating less doesn’t work for me” - they should be honest and say “I really struggle with eating less”
No one is immune to the effects of starvation
Yeah, those starvation exercises of the 40s were great. The Minnesota one had one of the subjects taking three fingers off his hand with an axe.
So do you walk around in constant calorie deficit?
C.
I don’t, only if I need to for competition.
If you know anyone that can break the laws of thermodynamics and eat less calories and still gain weight, send them to the nearest hospital or university for study. Their body might be able to fix world hunger
But I can see it’s an issue we won’t agree on. As soon as someone think the laws of the universe don’t apply to their weight loss story, I can tell it’s a pointless discussion. So we can agree to disagree on it
Having a physics(ish) backgrounds, I'm all signed up to the first law of thermodynamics. However, I can see that it's not as simple as that. I'd like to see you work a purist thermodynamics approach for the rest of your life reducing your calorific intake by the necessary amount. People starve and weight comes off. Most of the time. It's not sustainable apart from for a rare few.
We will always disagree on this, but I like to put a different view across for all the people who are flogging themselves to death, not lying to themselves about their diet, and still not getting the results they want. For those folks, it's not a simple matter of not eating.
C.
Ah but because I don't fit his view it's a pointless discussion...
And my nutritionist, endocrinologist, gynocologist, neurologist, GP, bariatric surgeon and mental health team are obviously all also wrong.
Something like 95% of studies on weight loss are done on men because their hormones don't fluctuate.
Hormones play a huge part in how our bodies do and don't burn calories. That's why it's not as simple as in Vs out...
"I totally agree with you on this. Can't say it strongly enough | |||
" Well said The method always works, eat less move more The things you do to reach that method are what fail. That’s the tricky part But don’t do yourself a disservice by just assuming eating less doesn’t work because your so special Instead look at what your doing and try to fix what’s going wrong. It’s a very common mindset I see in people trying to lose weight - “ I’m doing everything perfect the method just doesn’t work for me”" There is nothing technically wrong with what you are saying but it isn't a useful view in my opinion. If I was designing a car to break a speed record and asked experts how to go about it and they said reduce losses from drag and put more fuel through the engine (basically the opposite of exercise more, eat less) they would of course be totally correct but not really much use. Of far more use would be a chemical engineer who showed how adding nitrous oxide in the right way produces more power or high speed modeling of the combustion process showed how I should re position the spark plugs and a computer scientist helping me control the time injection and spark timing to increase the amount of fuel I burn and a whole host of other suggestions. Ultimately these may well all come down to variations of 'get more fuel in the engine' but the person who gave that advice while being 100% correct is less useful to me than others who say that it isn't as simple as pouring in more fuel, you need to understand how that fuel is used. Maybe this analogy helps explain why people see your approach as unhelpful even though I totally agree that anyone who says it is incorrect doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics. Mr | |||
" Well said The method always works, eat less move more The things you do to reach that method are what fail. That’s the tricky part But don’t do yourself a disservice by just assuming eating less doesn’t work because your so special Instead look at what your doing and try to fix what’s going wrong. It’s a very common mindset I see in people trying to lose weight - “ I’m doing everything perfect the method just doesn’t work for me” There is nothing technically wrong with what you are saying but it isn't a useful view in my opinion. If I was designing a car to break a speed record and asked experts how to go about it and they said reduce losses from drag and put more fuel through the engine (basically the opposite of exercise more, eat less) they would of course be totally correct but not really much use. Of far more use would be a chemical engineer who showed how adding nitrous oxide in the right way produces more power or high speed modeling of the combustion process showed how I should re position the spark plugs and a computer scientist helping me control the time injection and spark timing to increase the amount of fuel I burn and a whole host of other suggestions. Ultimately these may well all come down to variations of 'get more fuel in the engine' but the person who gave that advice while being 100% correct is less useful to me than others who say that it isn't as simple as pouring in more fuel, you need to understand how that fuel is used. Maybe this analogy helps explain why people see your approach as unhelpful even though I totally agree that anyone who says it is incorrect doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics. Mr" It’s useful because it makes people assess what they are doing wrong instead of falsely believing it just doesn’t work for them | |||
| |||
" Well said The method always works, eat less move more The things you do to reach that method are what fail. That’s the tricky part But don’t do yourself a disservice by just assuming eating less doesn’t work because your so special Instead look at what your doing and try to fix what’s going wrong. It’s a very common mindset I see in people trying to lose weight - “ I’m doing everything perfect the method just doesn’t work for me” There is nothing technically wrong with what you are saying but it isn't a useful view in my opinion. If I was designing a car to break a speed record and asked experts how to go about it and they said reduce losses from drag and put more fuel through the engine (basically the opposite of exercise more, eat less) they would of course be totally correct but not really much use. Of far more use would be a chemical engineer who showed how adding nitrous oxide in the right way produces more power or high speed modeling of the combustion process showed how I should re position the spark plugs and a computer scientist helping me control the time injection and spark timing to increase the amount of fuel I burn and a whole host of other suggestions. Ultimately these may well all come down to variations of 'get more fuel in the engine' but the person who gave that advice while being 100% correct is less useful to me than others who say that it isn't as simple as pouring in more fuel, you need to understand how that fuel is used. Maybe this analogy helps explain why people see your approach as unhelpful even though I totally agree that anyone who says it is incorrect doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics. Mr It’s useful because it makes people assess what they are doing wrong instead of falsely believing it just doesn’t work for them " Not if the only way they know to calculate energy in is using the number of kcals on a food packet. It is quite possible to reduce that figure and increase exercise and still not lose weight. This doesn't contravene the laws of thermodynamics at all any more than pouring petrol through an engine that's running too rich without seeing any increase in power does. Mr | |||
"Ignoring your non-exercise activity thermogenesis. Usually is simple to increase it but is often overlooked. Not appreciating that monthly hormones can make to feel amazing one week in the gym and shit the next. You're not failing it's your hormones, don't give up. Yes! If you haven't already have a read of Roar (women are not small men) by Dr Stacey Simm. It's fascinating" If you are tracking weight loss and having issues with your cycle (especially bloating/ water retention) there is a way around it, although it can be a bit more time consuming. You can track individual weeks of your cycle (week 1 to week 1, week 2 to week 2 etc) and then trend that way. Alternatively pick 1 point in your cycle and track that. | |||
Not getting someone to support and encourage you. We all need this
Not having your 'Why'. Have a reason to do it so that you retain focus. An occasion where you plan on being naked in front of many people is a great motivator
Mrs | |||
| |||
| |||
"Excessive focus on cardio. Common mistake." Agree 100% | |||
" Well said The method always works, eat less move more The things you do to reach that method are what fail. That’s the tricky part But don’t do yourself a disservice by just assuming eating less doesn’t work because your so special Instead look at what your doing and try to fix what’s going wrong. It’s a very common mindset I see in people trying to lose weight - “ I’m doing everything perfect the method just doesn’t work for me” There is nothing technically wrong with what you are saying but it isn't a useful view in my opinion. If I was designing a car to break a speed record and asked experts how to go about it and they said reduce losses from drag and put more fuel through the engine (basically the opposite of exercise more, eat less) they would of course be totally correct but not really much use. Of far more use would be a chemical engineer who showed how adding nitrous oxide in the right way produces more power or high speed modeling of the combustion process showed how I should re position the spark plugs and a computer scientist helping me control the time injection and spark timing to increase the amount of fuel I burn and a whole host of other suggestions. Ultimately these may well all come down to variations of 'get more fuel in the engine' but the person who gave that advice while being 100% correct is less useful to me than others who say that it isn't as simple as pouring in more fuel, you need to understand how that fuel is used. Maybe this analogy helps explain why people see your approach as unhelpful even though I totally agree that anyone who says it is incorrect doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics. Mr It’s useful because it makes people assess what they are doing wrong instead of falsely believing it just doesn’t work for them Not if the only way they know to calculate energy in is using the number of kcals on a food packet. It is quite possible to reduce that figure and increase exercise and still not lose weight. This doesn't contravene the laws of thermodynamics at all any more than pouring petrol through an engine that's running too rich without seeing any increase in power does. Mr" We can agree to disagree there then | |||
" Well said The method always works, eat less move more The things you do to reach that method are what fail. That’s the tricky part But don’t do yourself a disservice by just assuming eating less doesn’t work because your so special Instead look at what your doing and try to fix what’s going wrong. It’s a very common mindset I see in people trying to lose weight - “ I’m doing everything perfect the method just doesn’t work for me” There is nothing technically wrong with what you are saying but it isn't a useful view in my opinion. If I was designing a car to break a speed record and asked experts how to go about it and they said reduce losses from drag and put more fuel through the engine (basically the opposite of exercise more, eat less) they would of course be totally correct but not really much use. Of far more use would be a chemical engineer who showed how adding nitrous oxide in the right way produces more power or high speed modeling of the combustion process showed how I should re position the spark plugs and a computer scientist helping me control the time injection and spark timing to increase the amount of fuel I burn and a whole host of other suggestions. Ultimately these may well all come down to variations of 'get more fuel in the engine' but the person who gave that advice while being 100% correct is less useful to me than others who say that it isn't as simple as pouring in more fuel, you need to understand how that fuel is used. Maybe this analogy helps explain why people see your approach as unhelpful even though I totally agree that anyone who says it is incorrect doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics. Mr It’s useful because it makes people assess what they are doing wrong instead of falsely believing it just doesn’t work for them Not if the only way they know to calculate energy in is using the number of kcals on a food packet. It is quite possible to reduce that figure and increase exercise and still not lose weight. This doesn't contravene the laws of thermodynamics at all any more than pouring petrol through an engine that's running too rich without seeing any increase in power does. Mr We can agree to disagree there then "You don't believe it is possible to eat a diet that has a lower calorie figure (as specified on the packaging) but not loose weight? Are you saying the research that says metabolising protein requires a higher energy than metabolising refined carbs so that for fir every calorie of protein eaten you have less available to use/store than the comparable number of calories in say sugar? You don't believe that a person can undergo hormonal changes that affect the efficiency of their metabolism such that they require less food to survive and even having dropped their calorie intake still gain weight? Your equation calories in - calories out = weight loss (or gain) is only correct if you measure calories in at the level your body metabolises the energy and you include the energy requirements to do that metabolising in your calories out figure. If you're working at the level of calories that go in the mouth the correct equation is Calories you put in your mouth x efficiency of energy extraction in the gut - calories you poo without absorbing - calories out from staying alive - calories out from exercise = weight loss (or gain). That figure for efficiency is a significant factor in weight loss. If it increases then the calories in the mouth figure needs to decrease simply to maintain a constant weight. It is absolutely true that the answer is still reduce the calories in figure but it means that people can do that and see no result. The fact that they haven't reduced it enough doesn't make them a lier when they say "I've reduced my calorie intake and I haven't lost weight" I will accept that too strong a belief in this can lead to using it as an excuse when it isn't warranted - hence what I said in my first post about neither side being prepared to see the truth in the others argument. Mr | |||
" Well said The method always works, eat less move more The things you do to reach that method are what fail. That’s the tricky part But don’t do yourself a disservice by just assuming eating less doesn’t work because your so special Instead look at what your doing and try to fix what’s going wrong. It’s a very common mindset I see in people trying to lose weight - “ I’m doing everything perfect the method just doesn’t work for me” There is nothing technically wrong with what you are saying but it isn't a useful view in my opinion. If I was designing a car to break a speed record and asked experts how to go about it and they said reduce losses from drag and put more fuel through the engine (basically the opposite of exercise more, eat less) they would of course be totally correct but not really much use. Of far more use would be a chemical engineer who showed how adding nitrous oxide in the right way produces more power or high speed modeling of the combustion process showed how I should re position the spark plugs and a computer scientist helping me control the time injection and spark timing to increase the amount of fuel I burn and a whole host of other suggestions. Ultimately these may well all come down to variations of 'get more fuel in the engine' but the person who gave that advice while being 100% correct is less useful to me than others who say that it isn't as simple as pouring in more fuel, you need to understand how that fuel is used. Maybe this analogy helps explain why people see your approach as unhelpful even though I totally agree that anyone who says it is incorrect doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics. Mr It’s useful because it makes people assess what they are doing wrong instead of falsely believing it just doesn’t work for them Not if the only way they know to calculate energy in is using the number of kcals on a food packet. It is quite possible to reduce that figure and increase exercise and still not lose weight. This doesn't contravene the laws of thermodynamics at all any more than pouring petrol through an engine that's running too rich without seeing any increase in power does. Mr We can agree to disagree there then
You don't believe it is possible to eat a diet that has a lower calorie figure (as specified on the packaging) but not loose weight? Are you saying the research that says metabolising protein requires a higher energy than metabolising refined carbs so that for fir every calorie of protein eaten you have less available to use/store than the comparable number of calories in say sugar?
You don't believe that a person can undergo hormonal changes that affect the efficiency of their metabolism such that they require less food to survive and even having dropped their calorie intake still gain weight?
Your equation calories in - calories out = weight loss (or gain) is only correct if you measure calories in at the level your body metabolises the energy and you include the energy requirements to do that metabolising in your calories out figure.
If you're working at the level of calories that go in the mouth the correct equation is
Calories you put in your mouth x efficiency of energy extraction in the gut - calories you poo without absorbing - calories out from staying alive - calories out from exercise = weight loss (or gain).
That figure for efficiency is a significant factor in weight loss. If it increases then the calories in the mouth figure needs to decrease simply to maintain a constant weight.
It is absolutely true that the answer is still reduce the calories in figure but it means that people can do that and see no result. The fact that they haven't reduced it enough doesn't make them a lier when they say "I've reduced my calorie intake and I haven't lost weight"
I will accept that too strong a belief in this can lead to using it as an excuse when it isn't warranted - hence what I said in my first post about neither side being prepared to see the truth in the others argument.
Mr
"I don’t not believe any of that. I just believe that understanding and accepting that eating less and moving more always works is a very useful thing | |||
| |||
| |||
"There always seems two different perspectives on weight loss threads. Those who are average or slim and those who are larger. I am of the second variety, but do have health issues that make it more difficult for me to loose weight. I've lost a fair bit of weight this last year. Not by clean eating, macro split, bioavailability or anything else. It's by eating less and increasing my NEAT. I sometimes think we add so much confusion with all these principles that when we don't stick to them we fall off the wagon. Instead of making sustainable and progressive life style choices. Loosing weight to be lean I feel is a different story to loosing weight because you are obese. " I'm in the average or slim but have to work hard to stay there camp 
I've definitely noticed your weight loss in your pics - not that I look at them you understand  
Mr | |||
"There always seems two different perspectives on weight loss threads. Those who are average or slim and those who are larger. I am of the second variety, but do have health issues that make it more difficult for me to loose weight. I've lost a fair bit of weight this last year. Not by clean eating, macro split, bioavailability or anything else. It's by eating less and increasing my NEAT. I sometimes think we add so much confusion with all these principles that when we don't stick to them we fall off the wagon. Instead of making sustainable and progressive life style choices. Loosing weight to be lean I feel is a different story to loosing weight because you are obese. I'm in the average or slim but have to work hard to stay there camp
I've definitely noticed your weight loss in your pics - not that I look at them you understand
Mr"Oh I'm not saying one group has it easier than the other. But what I mean is when your leaner I think the fine tuning is important. When you're my size I think the fine tuning is less important and that calorie deficit is. Ta I have lost a fair bit. I'll send you pics well chuffed with myself | |||
"Ta I have lost a fair bit. I'll send you pics well chuffed with myself "Well done you! I thought you looked great before the weight loss, but of course it's what YOU think that's important. More cycling and less alcohol for me I think. Gbat | |||
" Its the quality of the food you take in, just as much as the amount. You could eat 2000 cal/ day of creme eggs or 2000 cal/day of chicken, rice and salad and the effects would be vastly different. Bioavailability is often overlooked. Bioavailablity is King. It shows why animal based foods are better as you can eat less and satiety is reached quicker. C" Unfortunately I've had to give in to this. I've been pescetarian for 19 years, mostly because I don't like meat. I've lost 3 stone so far just through cutting calories bit by bit and dropping another 200 each time I plateaued and that has worked well until my current weight which I've been unable to get past. I cut another 200 calories and nothing, then another 200 again and still nothing. At that point it began to feel nutritionally unsustainable to cut any more and still get enough protein which is something I've struggled with the whole way through (to the point it was picked up in a blood test). I know it's possible to get enough protein from plant sources but I've struggled with both consuming the necessary quantities of those plant sources as well as staying in calorie deficit. I initially vastly increased my fish consumption but I became worried about mercury as I'm very fussy with fish and mostly like tuna but I've started incorporating turkey into my diet as I get on better with it than chicken and I've already started losing weight again despite not changing my calorie intake. I also feel like my body composition is improving. | |||
"And can I ask, what’s wrong with weighing once a week? They do that in Slimming Clubs?" nothing.. it's not recommended to weigh yourself any more than once a week. | |||
" Well said The method always works, eat less move more The things you do to reach that method are what fail. That’s the tricky part But don’t do yourself a disservice by just assuming eating less doesn’t work because your so special Instead look at what your doing and try to fix what’s going wrong. It’s a very common mindset I see in people trying to lose weight - “ I’m doing everything perfect the method just doesn’t work for me” There is nothing technically wrong with what you are saying but it isn't a useful view in my opinion. If I was designing a car to break a speed record and asked experts how to go about it and they said reduce losses from drag and put more fuel through the engine (basically the opposite of exercise more, eat less) they would of course be totally correct but not really much use. Of far more use would be a chemical engineer who showed how adding nitrous oxide in the right way produces more power or high speed modeling of the combustion process showed how I should re position the spark plugs and a computer scientist helping me control the time injection and spark timing to increase the amount of fuel I burn and a whole host of other suggestions. Ultimately these may well all come down to variations of 'get more fuel in the engine' but the person who gave that advice while being 100% correct is less useful to me than others who say that it isn't as simple as pouring in more fuel, you need to understand how that fuel is used. Maybe this analogy helps explain why people see your approach as unhelpful even though I totally agree that anyone who says it is incorrect doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics. Mr It’s useful because it makes people assess what they are doing wrong instead of falsely believing it just doesn’t work for them Not if the only way they know to calculate energy in is using the number of kcals on a food packet. It is quite possible to reduce that figure and increase exercise and still not lose weight. This doesn't contravene the laws of thermodynamics at all any more than pouring petrol through an engine that's running too rich without seeing any increase in power does. Mr We can agree to disagree there then
You don't believe it is possible to eat a diet that has a lower calorie figure (as specified on the packaging) but not loose weight? Are you saying the research that says metabolising protein requires a higher energy than metabolising refined carbs so that for fir every calorie of protein eaten you have less available to use/store than the comparable number of calories in say sugar?
You don't believe that a person can undergo hormonal changes that affect the efficiency of their metabolism such that they require less food to survive and even having dropped their calorie intake still gain weight?
Your equation calories in - calories out = weight loss (or gain) is only correct if you measure calories in at the level your body metabolises the energy and you include the energy requirements to do that metabolising in your calories out figure.
If you're working at the level of calories that go in the mouth the correct equation is
Calories you put in your mouth x efficiency of energy extraction in the gut - calories you poo without absorbing - calories out from staying alive - calories out from exercise = weight loss (or gain).
That figure for efficiency is a significant factor in weight loss. If it increases then the calories in the mouth figure needs to decrease simply to maintain a constant weight.
It is absolutely true that the answer is still reduce the calories in figure but it means that people can do that and see no result. The fact that they haven't reduced it enough doesn't make them a lier when they say "I've reduced my calorie intake and I haven't lost weight"
I will accept that too strong a belief in this can lead to using it as an excuse when it isn't warranted - hence what I said in my first post about neither side being prepared to see the truth in the others argument.
Mr
I don’t not believe any of that. I just believe that understanding and accepting that eating less and moving more always works is a very useful thing "Can you explain how the following fits in with your application of the first law of thermodynamics to ? There are people in the population who have low body fat as a percentage of their overall mass, they don't do any appreciable amounts of exercise and live off junk food and/or do not restrict their calorie intake at all. Somehow, they remain slim. Surely that breaches the first law of thermodynamics? I used to work with one such guy: ate MacDonalds for lunch most days and in fact ate whatever he wanted whenever he wanted. People in the office just couldn't understand how he stayed so thin. C. | |||
" Its the quality of the food you take in, just as much as the amount. You could eat 2000 cal/ day of creme eggs or 2000 cal/day of chicken, rice and salad and the effects would be vastly different. Bioavailability is often overlooked. Bioavailablity is King. It shows why animal based foods are better as you can eat less and satiety is reached quicker. C Unfortunately I've had to give in to this. I've been pescetarian for 19 years, mostly because I don't like meat. I've lost 3 stone so far just through cutting calories bit by bit and dropping another 200 each time I plateaued and that has worked well until my current weight which I've been unable to get past. I cut another 200 calories and nothing, then another 200 again and still nothing. At that point it began to feel nutritionally unsustainable to cut any more and still get enough protein which is something I've struggled with the whole way through (to the point it was picked up in a blood test). I know it's possible to get enough protein from plant sources but I've struggled with both consuming the necessary quantities of those plant sources as well as staying in calorie deficit. I initially vastly increased my fish consumption but I became worried about mercury as I'm very fussy with fish and mostly like tuna but I've started incorporating turkey into my diet as I get on better with it than chicken and I've already started losing weight again despite not changing my calorie intake. I also feel like my body composition is improving. " Glad you have found a palatable and sustainable way for your health journey. | |||
"I like coach greg hes comical with his war on athlene x "Yes. I also like coach greg and yes about his thoughts about athlean x, his natural status and the weights he uses too lol. | |||
" Well said The method always works, eat less move more The things you do to reach that method are what fail. That’s the tricky part But don’t do yourself a disservice by just assuming eating less doesn’t work because your so special Instead look at what your doing and try to fix what’s going wrong. It’s a very common mindset I see in people trying to lose weight - “ I’m doing everything perfect the method just doesn’t work for me” There is nothing technically wrong with what you are saying but it isn't a useful view in my opinion. If I was designing a car to break a speed record and asked experts how to go about it and they said reduce losses from drag and put more fuel through the engine (basically the opposite of exercise more, eat less) they would of course be totally correct but not really much use. Of far more use would be a chemical engineer who showed how adding nitrous oxide in the right way produces more power or high speed modeling of the combustion process showed how I should re position the spark plugs and a computer scientist helping me control the time injection and spark timing to increase the amount of fuel I burn and a whole host of other suggestions. Ultimately these may well all come down to variations of 'get more fuel in the engine' but the person who gave that advice while being 100% correct is less useful to me than others who say that it isn't as simple as pouring in more fuel, you need to understand how that fuel is used. Maybe this analogy helps explain why people see your approach as unhelpful even though I totally agree that anyone who says it is incorrect doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics. Mr It’s useful because it makes people assess what they are doing wrong instead of falsely believing it just doesn’t work for them Not if the only way they know to calculate energy in is using the number of kcals on a food packet. It is quite possible to reduce that figure and increase exercise and still not lose weight. This doesn't contravene the laws of thermodynamics at all any more than pouring petrol through an engine that's running too rich without seeing any increase in power does. Mr We can agree to disagree there then
You don't believe it is possible to eat a diet that has a lower calorie figure (as specified on the packaging) but not loose weight? Are you saying the research that says metabolising protein requires a higher energy than metabolising refined carbs so that for fir every calorie of protein eaten you have less available to use/store than the comparable number of calories in say sugar?
You don't believe that a person can undergo hormonal changes that affect the efficiency of their metabolism such that they require less food to survive and even having dropped their calorie intake still gain weight?
Your equation calories in - calories out = weight loss (or gain) is only correct if you measure calories in at the level your body metabolises the energy and you include the energy requirements to do that metabolising in your calories out figure.
If you're working at the level of calories that go in the mouth the correct equation is
Calories you put in your mouth x efficiency of energy extraction in the gut - calories you poo without absorbing - calories out from staying alive - calories out from exercise = weight loss (or gain).
That figure for efficiency is a significant factor in weight loss. If it increases then the calories in the mouth figure needs to decrease simply to maintain a constant weight.
It is absolutely true that the answer is still reduce the calories in figure but it means that people can do that and see no result. The fact that they haven't reduced it enough doesn't make them a lier when they say "I've reduced my calorie intake and I haven't lost weight"
I will accept that too strong a belief in this can lead to using it as an excuse when it isn't warranted - hence what I said in my first post about neither side being prepared to see the truth in the others argument.
Mr
I don’t not believe any of that. I just believe that understanding and accepting that eating less and moving more always works is a very useful thing
Can you explain how the following fits in with your application of the first law of thermodynamics to ? There are people in the population who have low body fat as a percentage of their overall mass, they don't do any appreciable amounts of exercise and live off junk food and/or do not restrict their calorie intake at all. Somehow, they remain slim. Surely that breaches the first law of thermodynamics? I used to work with one such guy: ate MacDonalds for lunch most days and in fact ate whatever he wanted whenever he wanted. People in the office just couldn't understand how he stayed so thin.
C. "Either they are one of the lucky few that “run warm” - their body needs more calories to exist that others. Maybe they fidget a lot, they might actually run hotter, which takes more calories. It’s the same reason men on average burn more then women. So that is still true to the first law Or, you aren’t as certain about their calorie intake as you think. Your making a lot of assumptions that certain people are eating a lot and not putting on weight. For example plenty of people will have McDonald’s for breakfast, then nothing until they finish work, a big dinner, a snack before bed and that’s it. To anyone looking in it looks like all they do is eat. But no one knows about him not eating from 7am till 6pm Or that friend we all have that can eat a whole dominos every Friday. No one sees him having a cigarette and a coffee for breakfast then skip lunch. You’ve made assumptions and based them on fact I’d be more interested in hearing how you think certain people can just break these laws. | |||
" Well said The method always works, eat less move more The things you do to reach that method are what fail. That’s the tricky part But don’t do yourself a disservice by just assuming eating less doesn’t work because your so special Instead look at what your doing and try to fix what’s going wrong. It’s a very common mindset I see in people trying to lose weight - “ I’m doing everything perfect the method just doesn’t work for me” There is nothing technically wrong with what you are saying but it isn't a useful view in my opinion. If I was designing a car to break a speed record and asked experts how to go about it and they said reduce losses from drag and put more fuel through the engine (basically the opposite of exercise more, eat less) they would of course be totally correct but not really much use. Of far more use would be a chemical engineer who showed how adding nitrous oxide in the right way produces more power or high speed modeling of the combustion process showed how I should re position the spark plugs and a computer scientist helping me control the time injection and spark timing to increase the amount of fuel I burn and a whole host of other suggestions. Ultimately these may well all come down to variations of 'get more fuel in the engine' but the person who gave that advice while being 100% correct is less useful to me than others who say that it isn't as simple as pouring in more fuel, you need to understand how that fuel is used. Maybe this analogy helps explain why people see your approach as unhelpful even though I totally agree that anyone who says it is incorrect doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics. Mr It’s useful because it makes people assess what they are doing wrong instead of falsely believing it just doesn’t work for them Not if the only way they know to calculate energy in is using the number of kcals on a food packet. It is quite possible to reduce that figure and increase exercise and still not lose weight. This doesn't contravene the laws of thermodynamics at all any more than pouring petrol through an engine that's running too rich without seeing any increase in power does. Mr We can agree to disagree there then
You don't believe it is possible to eat a diet that has a lower calorie figure (as specified on the packaging) but not loose weight? Are you saying the research that says metabolising protein requires a higher energy than metabolising refined carbs so that for fir every calorie of protein eaten you have less available to use/store than the comparable number of calories in say sugar?
You don't believe that a person can undergo hormonal changes that affect the efficiency of their metabolism such that they require less food to survive and even having dropped their calorie intake still gain weight?
Your equation calories in - calories out = weight loss (or gain) is only correct if you measure calories in at the level your body metabolises the energy and you include the energy requirements to do that metabolising in your calories out figure.
If you're working at the level of calories that go in the mouth the correct equation is
Calories you put in your mouth x efficiency of energy extraction in the gut - calories you poo without absorbing - calories out from staying alive - calories out from exercise = weight loss (or gain).
That figure for efficiency is a significant factor in weight loss. If it increases then the calories in the mouth figure needs to decrease simply to maintain a constant weight.
It is absolutely true that the answer is still reduce the calories in figure but it means that people can do that and see no result. The fact that they haven't reduced it enough doesn't make them a lier when they say "I've reduced my calorie intake and I haven't lost weight"
I will accept that too strong a belief in this can lead to using it as an excuse when it isn't warranted - hence what I said in my first post about neither side being prepared to see the truth in the others argument.
Mr
I don’t not believe any of that. I just believe that understanding and accepting that eating less and moving more always works is a very useful thing
Can you explain how the following fits in with your application of the first law of thermodynamics to ? There are people in the population who have low body fat as a percentage of their overall mass, they don't do any appreciable amounts of exercise and live off junk food and/or do not restrict their calorie intake at all. Somehow, they remain slim. Surely that breaches the first law of thermodynamics? I used to work with one such guy: ate MacDonalds for lunch most days and in fact ate whatever he wanted whenever he wanted. People in the office just couldn't understand how he stayed so thin.
C.
Either they are one of the lucky few that “run warm” - their body needs more calories to exist that others. Maybe they fidget a lot, they might actually run hotter, which takes more calories. It’s the same reason men on average burn more then women. So that is still true to the first law
Or, you aren’t as certain about their calorie intake as you think. Your making a lot of assumptions that certain people are eating a lot and not putting on weight. For example plenty of people will have McDonald’s for breakfast, then nothing until they finish work, a big dinner, a snack before bed and that’s it. To anyone looking in it looks like all they do is eat. But no one knows about him not eating from 7am till 6pm
Or that friend we all have that can eat a whole dominos every Friday. No one sees him having a cigarette and a coffee for breakfast then skip lunch. You’ve made assumptions and based them on fact
I’d be more interested in hearing how you think certain people can just break these laws. "No, there have been what they call twin studies (and others) where variations in ability to keep weight off have been observed. From what you say though, it suggests that people are all different "under the hood". The issue I have with your thermodynamics theory is not the law of physics itself. It's that you're applying it at such a high level, when actually what you probably have is lots of mechanisms at play that each comply with the law. Similarly different factors (eg hormones) that can affect when the law comes into play. Can you see that if you have lots of little thermodynamics "situations" in the body, the effect can be different to what is predicted my applying the law from 50000ft up? C. | |||
"Just as a tiny example, let’s say you stop taking the stairs at work and take the lift And let’s say that’s 100 less calories you burn x5 a week That’s 7.5 lbs at the end of the year in extra calories. Isn’t the butterfly effect? Or something? Tiny changes now create huge changes down the line So take the stairs " Can't. I can't walk. All my exercise is done using my shoulders, biceps, triceps, traps etc. Small muscles. My "big" muscles (quads, glutes etc) don't work properly and so they don't do an awful lot. I watch what I eat, I do a fuck ton of high energy wheelchair based exercise, I lift weights, I play wheelchair basketball, I push 5/10k events, I push to the shops and all around Manchester city centre for my job. I'm fat from the waist down, but solid muscle above it. I've stopped caring so much to be honest, I've got bigger (lightly battered) fish to fry (pun intended). Such as trying to stop my brain wanting me to take a one way trip to Switzerland to make the pain stop | |||
" Well said The method always works, eat less move more The things you do to reach that method are what fail. That’s the tricky part But don’t do yourself a disservice by just assuming eating less doesn’t work because your so special Instead look at what your doing and try to fix what’s going wrong. It’s a very common mindset I see in people trying to lose weight - “ I’m doing everything perfect the method just doesn’t work for me” There is nothing technically wrong with what you are saying but it isn't a useful view in my opinion. If I was designing a car to break a speed record and asked experts how to go about it and they said reduce losses from drag and put more fuel through the engine (basically the opposite of exercise more, eat less) they would of course be totally correct but not really much use. Of far more use would be a chemical engineer who showed how adding nitrous oxide in the right way produces more power or high speed modeling of the combustion process showed how I should re position the spark plugs and a computer scientist helping me control the time injection and spark timing to increase the amount of fuel I burn and a whole host of other suggestions. Ultimately these may well all come down to variations of 'get more fuel in the engine' but the person who gave that advice while being 100% correct is less useful to me than others who say that it isn't as simple as pouring in more fuel, you need to understand how that fuel is used. Maybe this analogy helps explain why people see your approach as unhelpful even though I totally agree that anyone who says it is incorrect doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics. Mr It’s useful because it makes people assess what they are doing wrong instead of falsely believing it just doesn’t work for them Not if the only way they know to calculate energy in is using the number of kcals on a food packet. It is quite possible to reduce that figure and increase exercise and still not lose weight. This doesn't contravene the laws of thermodynamics at all any more than pouring petrol through an engine that's running too rich without seeing any increase in power does. Mr We can agree to disagree there then
You don't believe it is possible to eat a diet that has a lower calorie figure (as specified on the packaging) but not loose weight? Are you saying the research that says metabolising protein requires a higher energy than metabolising refined carbs so that for fir every calorie of protein eaten you have less available to use/store than the comparable number of calories in say sugar?
You don't believe that a person can undergo hormonal changes that affect the efficiency of their metabolism such that they require less food to survive and even having dropped their calorie intake still gain weight?
Your equation calories in - calories out = weight loss (or gain) is only correct if you measure calories in at the level your body metabolises the energy and you include the energy requirements to do that metabolising in your calories out figure.
If you're working at the level of calories that go in the mouth the correct equation is
Calories you put in your mouth x efficiency of energy extraction in the gut - calories you poo without absorbing - calories out from staying alive - calories out from exercise = weight loss (or gain).
That figure for efficiency is a significant factor in weight loss. If it increases then the calories in the mouth figure needs to decrease simply to maintain a constant weight.
It is absolutely true that the answer is still reduce the calories in figure but it means that people can do that and see no result. The fact that they haven't reduced it enough doesn't make them a lier when they say "I've reduced my calorie intake and I haven't lost weight"
I will accept that too strong a belief in this can lead to using it as an excuse when it isn't warranted - hence what I said in my first post about neither side being prepared to see the truth in the others argument.
Mr
I don’t not believe any of that. I just believe that understanding and accepting that eating less and moving more always works is a very useful thing
Can you explain how the following fits in with your application of the first law of thermodynamics to ? There are people in the population who have low body fat as a percentage of their overall mass, they don't do any appreciable amounts of exercise and live off junk food and/or do not restrict their calorie intake at all. Somehow, they remain slim. Surely that breaches the first law of thermodynamics? I used to work with one such guy: ate MacDonalds for lunch most days and in fact ate whatever he wanted whenever he wanted. People in the office just couldn't understand how he stayed so thin.
C.
Either they are one of the lucky few that “run warm” - their body needs more calories to exist that others. Maybe they fidget a lot, they might actually run hotter, which takes more calories. It’s the same reason men on average burn more then women. So that is still true to the first law
Or, you aren’t as certain about their calorie intake as you think. Your making a lot of assumptions that certain people are eating a lot and not putting on weight. For example plenty of people will have McDonald’s for breakfast, then nothing until they finish work, a big dinner, a snack before bed and that’s it. To anyone looking in it looks like all they do is eat. But no one knows about him not eating from 7am till 6pm
Or that friend we all have that can eat a whole dominos every Friday. No one sees him having a cigarette and a coffee for breakfast then skip lunch. You’ve made assumptions and based them on fact
I’d be more interested in hearing how you think certain people can just break these laws. "I have zero explanation for it but I did have an ex boyfriend who I was with for 3 years and for a period of that time we worked together so we were together for possibly an unhealthy amount of time. He had an ungodly ability to put food away to the point it was disturbing yet he was so slim he was self conscious of it. There weren't long periods of time he didn't eat for, if anything I was surprised he made it through the night . Whatever it was, I think it was genetic because his dad was the same. His mum unfortunately was not the same and was quite overweight and had to have her knees replaced. I'm aware he's an anomaly though. | |||
| |||
" I’d be more interested in hearing how you think certain people can just break these laws. No, there have been what they call twin studies (and others) where variations in ability to keep weight off have been observed. From what you say though, it suggests that people are all different "under the hood". The issue I have with your thermodynamics theory is not the law of physics itself. It's that you're applying it at such a high level, when actually what you probably have is lots of mechanisms at play that each comply with the law. Similarly different factors (eg hormones) that can affect when the law comes into play. Can you see that if you have lots of little thermodynamics "situations" in the body, the effect can be different to what is predicted my applying the law from 50000ft up? C. " True, it’s massively overly simplified to say calories in calories out as if it’s one simple equation But the point of this is that you should be focusing entirely on that complex equation to make it work. Instead of debating whether keto is good or bad, or vegetarian is better then meat, or rice is better then bread, or whether eating before bed is bad, whatever none sense people focus on should instead be focused on making the equation work. Keto is good, intermittent fasting is good, slimming world is good, Vegan is good, it all works if you make calories in vs calories out work None of them are good if calorie in vs calories out doesn’t work People spend so much time majoring in the minors, if they focus on eating less and/or moving more, they’d get 90% of their goals | |||
 also a few take aways when walking home from work
| |||
" I’d be more interested in hearing how you think certain people can just break these laws. No, there have been what they call twin studies (and others) where variations in ability to keep weight off have been observed. From what you say though, it suggests that people are all different "under the hood". The issue I have with your thermodynamics theory is not the law of physics itself. It's that you're applying it at such a high level, when actually what you probably have is lots of mechanisms at play that each comply with the law. Similarly different factors (eg hormones) that can affect when the law comes into play. Can you see that if you have lots of little thermodynamics "situations" in the body, the effect can be different to what is predicted my applying the law from 50000ft up? C. True, it’s massively overly simplified to say calories in calories out as if it’s one simple equation But the point of this is that you should be focusing entirely on that complex equation to make it work. Instead of debating whether keto is good or bad, or vegetarian is better then meat, or rice is better then bread, or whether eating before bed is bad, whatever none sense people focus on should instead be focused on making the equation work. Keto is good, intermittent fasting is good, slimming world is good, Vegan is good, it all works if you make calories in vs calories out work None of them are good if calorie in vs calories out doesn’t work People spend so much time majoring in the minors, if they focus on eating less and/or moving more, they’d get 90% of their goals " Yes, calories in v out works, the reason why it might not for some is cos they dont spend enough time in a deficit as the respond time might be slower, it works for me and that is how I diet year round, to get shredded. I eat less and do alot of cardio for 6 months then I slowly maingain the other 6 months, also I dont do macros, all I do is to focus to hit my calorie limit and to make sure that I have enough protein and carbs in the meals | |||
" I’d be more interested in hearing how you think certain people can just break these laws. No, there have been what they call twin studies (and others) where variations in ability to keep weight off have been observed. From what you say though, it suggests that people are all different "under the hood". The issue I have with your thermodynamics theory is not the law of physics itself. It's that you're applying it at such a high level, when actually what you probably have is lots of mechanisms at play that each comply with the law. Similarly different factors (eg hormones) that can affect when the law comes into play. Can you see that if you have lots of little thermodynamics "situations" in the body, the effect can be different to what is predicted my applying the law from 50000ft up? C. True, it’s massively overly simplified to say calories in calories out as if it’s one simple equation But the point of this is that you should be focusing entirely on that complex equation to make it work. Instead of debating whether keto is good or bad, or vegetarian is better then meat, or rice is better then bread, or whether eating before bed is bad, whatever none sense people focus on should instead be focused on making the equation work. Keto is good, intermittent fasting is good, slimming world is good, Vegan is good, it all works if you make calories in vs calories out work None of them are good if calorie in vs calories out doesn’t work People spend so much time majoring in the minors, if they focus on eating less and/or moving more, they’d get 90% of their goals Yes, calories in v out works, the reason why it might not for some is cos they dont spend enough time in a deficit as the respond time might be slower, it works for me and that is how I diet year round, to get shredded. I eat less and do alot of cardio for 6 months then I slowly maingain the other 6 months, also I dont do macros, all I do is to focus to hit my calorie limit and to make sure that I have enough protein and carbs in the meals "Out of interest, what would be your recommended reading list in the area of exercise and nutrition? C. | |||
" Well said The method always works, eat less move more The things you do to reach that method are what fail. That’s the tricky part But don’t do yourself a disservice by just assuming eating less doesn’t work because your so special Instead look at what your doing and try to fix what’s going wrong. It’s a very common mindset I see in people trying to lose weight - “ I’m doing everything perfect the method just doesn’t work for me” There is nothing technically wrong with what you are saying but it isn't a useful view in my opinion. If I was designing a car to break a speed record and asked experts how to go about it and they said reduce losses from drag and put more fuel through the engine (basically the opposite of exercise more, eat less) they would of course be totally correct but not really much use. Of far more use would be a chemical engineer who showed how adding nitrous oxide in the right way produces more power or high speed modeling of the combustion process showed how I should re position the spark plugs and a computer scientist helping me control the time injection and spark timing to increase the amount of fuel I burn and a whole host of other suggestions. Ultimately these may well all come down to variations of 'get more fuel in the engine' but the person who gave that advice while being 100% correct is less useful to me than others who say that it isn't as simple as pouring in more fuel, you need to understand how that fuel is used. Maybe this analogy helps explain why people see your approach as unhelpful even though I totally agree that anyone who says it is incorrect doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics. Mr It’s useful because it makes people assess what they are doing wrong instead of falsely believing it just doesn’t work for them Not if the only way they know to calculate energy in is using the number of kcals on a food packet. It is quite possible to reduce that figure and increase exercise and still not lose weight. This doesn't contravene the laws of thermodynamics at all any more than pouring petrol through an engine that's running too rich without seeing any increase in power does. Mr We can agree to disagree there then
You don't believe it is possible to eat a diet that has a lower calorie figure (as specified on the packaging) but not loose weight? Are you saying the research that says metabolising protein requires a higher energy than metabolising refined carbs so that for fir every calorie of protein eaten you have less available to use/store than the comparable number of calories in say sugar?
You don't believe that a person can undergo hormonal changes that affect the efficiency of their metabolism such that they require less food to survive and even having dropped their calorie intake still gain weight?
Your equation calories in - calories out = weight loss (or gain) is only correct if you measure calories in at the level your body metabolises the energy and you include the energy requirements to do that metabolising in your calories out figure.
If you're working at the level of calories that go in the mouth the correct equation is
Calories you put in your mouth x efficiency of energy extraction in the gut - calories you poo without absorbing - calories out from staying alive - calories out from exercise = weight loss (or gain).
That figure for efficiency is a significant factor in weight loss. If it increases then the calories in the mouth figure needs to decrease simply to maintain a constant weight.
It is absolutely true that the answer is still reduce the calories in figure but it means that people can do that and see no result. The fact that they haven't reduced it enough doesn't make them a lier when they say "I've reduced my calorie intake and I haven't lost weight"
I will accept that too strong a belief in this can lead to using it as an excuse when it isn't warranted - hence what I said in my first post about neither side being prepared to see the truth in the others argument.
Mr
I don’t not believe any of that. I just believe that understanding and accepting that eating less and moving more always works is a very useful thing
Can you explain how the following fits in with your application of the first law of thermodynamics to ? There are people in the population who have low body fat as a percentage of their overall mass, they don't do any appreciable amounts of exercise and live off junk food and/or do not restrict their calorie intake at all. Somehow, they remain slim. Surely that breaches the first law of thermodynamics? I used to work with one such guy: ate MacDonalds for lunch most days and in fact ate whatever he wanted whenever he wanted. People in the office just couldn't understand how he stayed so thin.
C. "This used to be me. Until I hit 30, I could and did eat 3-4,000 calories a day and my weight was around 9 stone (I’m 5ft11) it didn’t seem to matter what I ate l, my weight was constant. Its only when I hit 30 that I had to start watching what I ate. | |||
" Well said The method always works, eat less move more The things you do to reach that method are what fail. That’s the tricky part But don’t do yourself a disservice by just assuming eating less doesn’t work because your so special Instead look at what your doing and try to fix what’s going wrong. It’s a very common mindset I see in people trying to lose weight - “ I’m doing everything perfect the method just doesn’t work for me” There is nothing technically wrong with what you are saying but it isn't a useful view in my opinion. If I was designing a car to break a speed record and asked experts how to go about it and they said reduce losses from drag and put more fuel through the engine (basically the opposite of exercise more, eat less) they would of course be totally correct but not really much use. Of far more use would be a chemical engineer who showed how adding nitrous oxide in the right way produces more power or high speed modeling of the combustion process showed how I should re position the spark plugs and a computer scientist helping me control the time injection and spark timing to increase the amount of fuel I burn and a whole host of other suggestions. Ultimately these may well all come down to variations of 'get more fuel in the engine' but the person who gave that advice while being 100% correct is less useful to me than others who say that it isn't as simple as pouring in more fuel, you need to understand how that fuel is used. Maybe this analogy helps explain why people see your approach as unhelpful even though I totally agree that anyone who says it is incorrect doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics. Mr It’s useful because it makes people assess what they are doing wrong instead of falsely believing it just doesn’t work for them Not if the only way they know to calculate energy in is using the number of kcals on a food packet. It is quite possible to reduce that figure and increase exercise and still not lose weight. This doesn't contravene the laws of thermodynamics at all any more than pouring petrol through an engine that's running too rich without seeing any increase in power does. Mr We can agree to disagree there then
You don't believe it is possible to eat a diet that has a lower calorie figure (as specified on the packaging) but not loose weight? Are you saying the research that says metabolising protein requires a higher energy than metabolising refined carbs so that for fir every calorie of protein eaten you have less available to use/store than the comparable number of calories in say sugar?
You don't believe that a person can undergo hormonal changes that affect the efficiency of their metabolism such that they require less food to survive and even having dropped their calorie intake still gain weight?
Your equation calories in - calories out = weight loss (or gain) is only correct if you measure calories in at the level your body metabolises the energy and you include the energy requirements to do that metabolising in your calories out figure.
If you're working at the level of calories that go in the mouth the correct equation is
Calories you put in your mouth x efficiency of energy extraction in the gut - calories you poo without absorbing - calories out from staying alive - calories out from exercise = weight loss (or gain).
That figure for efficiency is a significant factor in weight loss. If it increases then the calories in the mouth figure needs to decrease simply to maintain a constant weight.
It is absolutely true that the answer is still reduce the calories in figure but it means that people can do that and see no result. The fact that they haven't reduced it enough doesn't make them a lier when they say "I've reduced my calorie intake and I haven't lost weight"
I will accept that too strong a belief in this can lead to using it as an excuse when it isn't warranted - hence what I said in my first post about neither side being prepared to see the truth in the others argument.
Mr
I don’t not believe any of that. I just believe that understanding and accepting that eating less and moving more always works is a very useful thing
Can you explain how the following fits in with your application of the first law of thermodynamics to ? There are people in the population who have low body fat as a percentage of their overall mass, they don't do any appreciable amounts of exercise and live off junk food and/or do not restrict their calorie intake at all. Somehow, they remain slim. Surely that breaches the first law of thermodynamics? I used to work with one such guy: ate MacDonalds for lunch most days and in fact ate whatever he wanted whenever he wanted. People in the office just couldn't understand how he stayed so thin.
C.
This used to be me. Until I hit 30, I could and did eat 3-4,000 calories a day and my weight was around 9 stone (I’m 5ft11) it didn’t seem to matter what I ate l, my weight was constant. Its only when I hit 30 that I had to start watching what I ate. "That's exactly the sort of thing I mean. For short term gains, yes starve yourself (not my recommendation) and move lots more, but for a sustainable lifestyle we all have to be a lot smarter. As you've pointed out, you had no problem prior to 30. Was the same for me as well. I'd like to maintain a certain weight without flogging myself half to death. I know it's possible for many people. C. | |||
"*Slimming clubs are designed for you to lose some weight but never sustain it, hence always returning. The word Syns is such a toxic word to use when relating to food and health Agree. Hate the approach they use " Heinz own SW i think | |||
" Well said The method always works, eat less move more The things you do to reach that method are what fail. That’s the tricky part But don’t do yourself a disservice by just assuming eating less doesn’t work because your so special Instead look at what your doing and try to fix what’s going wrong. It’s a very common mindset I see in people trying to lose weight - “ I’m doing everything perfect the method just doesn’t work for me” There is nothing technically wrong with what you are saying but it isn't a useful view in my opinion. If I was designing a car to break a speed record and asked experts how to go about it and they said reduce losses from drag and put more fuel through the engine (basically the opposite of exercise more, eat less) they would of course be totally correct but not really much use. Of far more use would be a chemical engineer who showed how adding nitrous oxide in the right way produces more power or high speed modeling of the combustion process showed how I should re position the spark plugs and a computer scientist helping me control the time injection and spark timing to increase the amount of fuel I burn and a whole host of other suggestions. Ultimately these may well all come down to variations of 'get more fuel in the engine' but the person who gave that advice while being 100% correct is less useful to me than others who say that it isn't as simple as pouring in more fuel, you need to understand how that fuel is used. Maybe this analogy helps explain why people see your approach as unhelpful even though I totally agree that anyone who says it is incorrect doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics. Mr It’s useful because it makes people assess what they are doing wrong instead of falsely believing it just doesn’t work for them Not if the only way they know to calculate energy in is using the number of kcals on a food packet. It is quite possible to reduce that figure and increase exercise and still not lose weight. This doesn't contravene the laws of thermodynamics at all any more than pouring petrol through an engine that's running too rich without seeing any increase in power does. Mr We can agree to disagree there then
You don't believe it is possible to eat a diet that has a lower calorie figure (as specified on the packaging) but not loose weight? Are you saying the research that says metabolising protein requires a higher energy than metabolising refined carbs so that for fir every calorie of protein eaten you have less available to use/store than the comparable number of calories in say sugar?
You don't believe that a person can undergo hormonal changes that affect the efficiency of their metabolism such that they require less food to survive and even having dropped their calorie intake still gain weight?
Your equation calories in - calories out = weight loss (or gain) is only correct if you measure calories in at the level your body metabolises the energy and you include the energy requirements to do that metabolising in your calories out figure.
If you're working at the level of calories that go in the mouth the correct equation is
Calories you put in your mouth x efficiency of energy extraction in the gut - calories you poo without absorbing - calories out from staying alive - calories out from exercise = weight loss (or gain).
That figure for efficiency is a significant factor in weight loss. If it increases then the calories in the mouth figure needs to decrease simply to maintain a constant weight.
It is absolutely true that the answer is still reduce the calories in figure but it means that people can do that and see no result. The fact that they haven't reduced it enough doesn't make them a lier when they say "I've reduced my calorie intake and I haven't lost weight"
I will accept that too strong a belief in this can lead to using it as an excuse when it isn't warranted - hence what I said in my first post about neither side being prepared to see the truth in the others argument.
Mr
I don’t not believe any of that. I just believe that understanding and accepting that eating less and moving more always works is a very useful thing
Can you explain how the following fits in with your application of the first law of thermodynamics to ? There are people in the population who have low body fat as a percentage of their overall mass, they don't do any appreciable amounts of exercise and live off junk food and/or do not restrict their calorie intake at all. Somehow, they remain slim. Surely that breaches the first law of thermodynamics? I used to work with one such guy: ate MacDonalds for lunch most days and in fact ate whatever he wanted whenever he wanted. People in the office just couldn't understand how he stayed so thin.
C.
Either they are one of the lucky few that “run warm” - their body needs more calories to exist that others. Maybe they fidget a lot, they might actually run hotter, which takes more calories. It’s the same reason men on average burn more then women. So that is still true to the first law
Or, you aren’t as certain about their calorie intake as you think. Your making a lot of assumptions that certain people are eating a lot and not putting on weight. For example plenty of people will have McDonald’s for breakfast, then nothing until they finish work, a big dinner, a snack before bed and that’s it. To anyone looking in it looks like all they do is eat. But no one knows about him not eating from 7am till 6pm
Or that friend we all have that can eat a whole dominos every Friday. No one sees him having a cigarette and a coffee for breakfast then skip lunch. You’ve made assumptions and based them on fact
I’d be more interested in hearing how you think certain people can just break these laws. "OK. Heres an example. Carbs and protein both have 4 calories/gram For simplicity sake we use a value of 250g of each. 1000 calories total. Your body uses upto 1/3 more energy to process protein than carbohydrate. So if your body needs 1000 energy units to process the carbohydrate, it will need 1333 energy units to process the same amount of protein. Extrapolating out you can see that by changing the macro ratios of your food for the same calorie content you can use more or less energy. Your thermodynamic laws do not really apply here. A calorie as a unit of energy heating water is fine. But your body doesn't work that way. It's a chemical breakdown, not a furnace. | |||
"Not eating enough." That's my problem. The body ends up storing everything not knowing what or when it's getting food next. | |||
" This used to be me. Until I hit 30, I could and did eat 3-4,000 calories a day and my weight was around 9 stone (I’m 5ft11) it didn’t seem to matter what I ate l, my weight was constant. Its only when I hit 30 that I had to start watching what I ate. That's exactly the sort of thing I mean. For short term gains, yes starve yourself (not my recommendation) and move lots more, but for a sustainable lifestyle we all have to be a lot smarter. As you've pointed out, you had no problem prior to 30. Was the same for me as well. I'd like to maintain a certain weight without flogging myself half to death. I know it's possible for many people. C. " Mr KC is 36. He's the lightest he's been, possibly ever as an adult. He's about 72kg and 6ft 4. He's been as much as 76kg but somehow lost 3-4kg in the past year. He eats absolutely anything and everything. He has never, ever watched a solitary calorie and he takes great pride in finishing everyone else's food if they don't. Apart from walking (as a form of transport), he does zero exercise. His hobbies involve sitting and building/painting little figures. His mother and father are equally slim (his Dad is nearly 60, just as tall and still as slim as ever). Other than walking, neither of them do formal exercise either. His two sisters are tall and slim too (guess what on the exercise?!) Take from the above what you wish, but I don't think Mr KC is going to acquire middle age spread, ever, no matter what he eats. | |||
"Not getting enough sleep can hinder you Yup thats my issue atm "Me too, my sleep pattern is horrendous, up around 5.30am most mornings | |||
" Well said The method always works, eat less move more The things you do to reach that method are what fail. That’s the tricky part But don’t do yourself a disservice by just assuming eating less doesn’t work because your so special Instead look at what your doing and try to fix what’s going wrong. It’s a very common mindset I see in people trying to lose weight - “ I’m doing everything perfect the method just doesn’t work for me” There is nothing technically wrong with what you are saying but it isn't a useful view in my opinion. If I was designing a car to break a speed record and asked experts how to go about it and they said reduce losses from drag and put more fuel through the engine (basically the opposite of exercise more, eat less) they would of course be totally correct but not really much use. Of far more use would be a chemical engineer who showed how adding nitrous oxide in the right way produces more power or high speed modeling of the combustion process showed how I should re position the spark plugs and a computer scientist helping me control the time injection and spark timing to increase the amount of fuel I burn and a whole host of other suggestions. Ultimately these may well all come down to variations of 'get more fuel in the engine' but the person who gave that advice while being 100% correct is less useful to me than others who say that it isn't as simple as pouring in more fuel, you need to understand how that fuel is used. Maybe this analogy helps explain why people see your approach as unhelpful even though I totally agree that anyone who says it is incorrect doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics. Mr It’s useful because it makes people assess what they are doing wrong instead of falsely believing it just doesn’t work for them Not if the only way they know to calculate energy in is using the number of kcals on a food packet. It is quite possible to reduce that figure and increase exercise and still not lose weight. This doesn't contravene the laws of thermodynamics at all any more than pouring petrol through an engine that's running too rich without seeing any increase in power does. Mr We can agree to disagree there then
You don't believe it is possible to eat a diet that has a lower calorie figure (as specified on the packaging) but not loose weight? Are you saying the research that says metabolising protein requires a higher energy than metabolising refined carbs so that for fir every calorie of protein eaten you have less available to use/store than the comparable number of calories in say sugar?
You don't believe that a person can undergo hormonal changes that affect the efficiency of their metabolism such that they require less food to survive and even having dropped their calorie intake still gain weight?
Your equation calories in - calories out = weight loss (or gain) is only correct if you measure calories in at the level your body metabolises the energy and you include the energy requirements to do that metabolising in your calories out figure.
If you're working at the level of calories that go in the mouth the correct equation is
Calories you put in your mouth x efficiency of energy extraction in the gut - calories you poo without absorbing - calories out from staying alive - calories out from exercise = weight loss (or gain).
That figure for efficiency is a significant factor in weight loss. If it increases then the calories in the mouth figure needs to decrease simply to maintain a constant weight.
It is absolutely true that the answer is still reduce the calories in figure but it means that people can do that and see no result. The fact that they haven't reduced it enough doesn't make them a lier when they say "I've reduced my calorie intake and I haven't lost weight"
I will accept that too strong a belief in this can lead to using it as an excuse when it isn't warranted - hence what I said in my first post about neither side being prepared to see the truth in the others argument.
Mr
I don’t not believe any of that. I just believe that understanding and accepting that eating less and moving more always works is a very useful thing
Can you explain how the following fits in with your application of the first law of thermodynamics to ? There are people in the population who have low body fat as a percentage of their overall mass, they don't do any appreciable amounts of exercise and live off junk food and/or do not restrict their calorie intake at all. Somehow, they remain slim. Surely that breaches the first law of thermodynamics? I used to work with one such guy: ate MacDonalds for lunch most days and in fact ate whatever he wanted whenever he wanted. People in the office just couldn't understand how he stayed so thin.
C.
Either they are one of the lucky few that “run warm” - their body needs more calories to exist that others. Maybe they fidget a lot, they might actually run hotter, which takes more calories. It’s the same reason men on average burn more then women. So that is still true to the first law
Or, you aren’t as certain about their calorie intake as you think. Your making a lot of assumptions that certain people are eating a lot and not putting on weight. For example plenty of people will have McDonald’s for breakfast, then nothing until they finish work, a big dinner, a snack before bed and that’s it. To anyone looking in it looks like all they do is eat. But no one knows about him not eating from 7am till 6pm
Or that friend we all have that can eat a whole dominos every Friday. No one sees him having a cigarette and a coffee for breakfast then skip lunch. You’ve made assumptions and based them on fact
I’d be more interested in hearing how you think certain people can just break these laws.
OK. Heres an example. Carbs and protein both have 4 calories/gram
For simplicity sake we use a value of 250g of each. 1000 calories total.
Your body uses upto 1/3 more energy to process protein than carbohydrate.
So if your body needs 1000 energy units to process the carbohydrate, it will need 1333 energy units to process the same amount of protein.
Extrapolating out you can see that by changing the macro ratios of your food for the same calorie content you can use more or less energy.
Your thermodynamic laws do not really apply here.
A calorie as a unit of energy heating water is fine. But your body doesn't work that way. It's a chemical breakdown, not a furnace."Why doesn’t it apply there? The first law is that energy can’t be created or destroyed, only transfered In terms of body weight, this translates to “you can’t gain mass without enough calories, and you can’t lose weight without cutting some calories” Why does your protein scenario break that law? It’s well known that a higher protein diet with aid weight loss due to the increased energy required to use protein. High protein diet = more calories out So I’m not sure what you mean when you say one of the law of the universe doesn’t work because…. Protein? | |||
" I’d be more interested in hearing how you think certain people can just break these laws. No, there have been what they call twin studies (and others) where variations in ability to keep weight off have been observed. From what you say though, it suggests that people are all different "under the hood". The issue I have with your thermodynamics theory is not the law of physics itself. It's that you're applying it at such a high level, when actually what you probably have is lots of mechanisms at play that each comply with the law. Similarly different factors (eg hormones) that can affect when the law comes into play. Can you see that if you have lots of little thermodynamics "situations" in the body, the effect can be different to what is predicted my applying the law from 50000ft up? C. True, it’s massively overly simplified to say calories in calories out as if it’s one simple equation But the point of this is that you should be focusing entirely on that complex equation to make it work. Instead of debating whether keto is good or bad, or vegetarian is better then meat, or rice is better then bread, or whether eating before bed is bad, whatever none sense people focus on should instead be focused on making the equation work. Keto is good, intermittent fasting is good, slimming world is good, Vegan is good, it all works if you make calories in vs calories out work None of them are good if calorie in vs calories out doesn’t work People spend so much time majoring in the minors, if they focus on eating less and/or moving more, they’d get 90% of their goals Yes, calories in v out works, the reason why it might not for some is cos they dont spend enough time in a deficit as the respond time might be slower, it works for me and that is how I diet year round, to get shredded. I eat less and do alot of cardio for 6 months then I slowly maingain the other 6 months, also I dont do macros, all I do is to focus to hit my calorie limit and to make sure that I have enough protein and carbs in the meals
Out of interest, what would be your recommended reading list in the area of exercise and nutrition?
C. "I dont have any recommendations, but I feel like that people in general are over complicating dieting | |||
" I’d be more interested in hearing how you think certain people can just break these laws. No, there have been what they call twin studies (and others) where variations in ability to keep weight off have been observed. From what you say though, it suggests that people are all different "under the hood". The issue I have with your thermodynamics theory is not the law of physics itself. It's that you're applying it at such a high level, when actually what you probably have is lots of mechanisms at play that each comply with the law. Similarly different factors (eg hormones) that can affect when the law comes into play. Can you see that if you have lots of little thermodynamics "situations" in the body, the effect can be different to what is predicted my applying the law from 50000ft up? C. True, it’s massively overly simplified to say calories in calories out as if it’s one simple equation But the point of this is that you should be focusing entirely on that complex equation to make it work. Instead of debating whether keto is good or bad, or vegetarian is better then meat, or rice is better then bread, or whether eating before bed is bad, whatever none sense people focus on should instead be focused on making the equation work. Keto is good, intermittent fasting is good, slimming world is good, Vegan is good, it all works if you make calories in vs calories out work None of them are good if calorie in vs calories out doesn’t work People spend so much time majoring in the minors, if they focus on eating less and/or moving more, they’d get 90% of their goals Yes, calories in v out works, the reason why it might not for some is cos they dont spend enough time in a deficit as the respond time might be slower, it works for me and that is how I diet year round, to get shredded. I eat less and do alot of cardio for 6 months then I slowly maingain the other 6 months, also I dont do macros, all I do is to focus to hit my calorie limit and to make sure that I have enough protein and carbs in the meals
Out of interest, what would be your recommended reading list in the area of exercise and nutrition?
C. I dont have any recommendations, but I feel like that people in general are over complicating dieting "Nice dodge. Sounds like you don't really base your research around books? Diet is actually really complicated long term. Over a short period of time, calorie restriction can work, the problem is most people come off the wagon, either by choice or unintentionally eventually, and the rebound in weight gain often leaves them heavier than when they first started. C. | |||
| |||
" This used to be me. Until I hit 30, I could and did eat 3-4,000 calories a day and my weight was around 9 stone (I’m 5ft11) it didn’t seem to matter what I ate l, my weight was constant. Its only when I hit 30 that I had to start watching what I ate. That's exactly the sort of thing I mean. For short term gains, yes starve yourself (not my recommendation) and move lots more, but for a sustainable lifestyle we all have to be a lot smarter. As you've pointed out, you had no problem prior to 30. Was the same for me as well. I'd like to maintain a certain weight without flogging myself half to death. I know it's possible for many people. C. Mr KC is 36. He's the lightest he's been, possibly ever as an adult. He's about 72kg and 6ft 4. He's been as much as 76kg but somehow lost 3-4kg in the past year. He eats absolutely anything and everything. He has never, ever watched a solitary calorie and he takes great pride in finishing everyone else's food if they don't. Apart from walking (as a form of transport), he does zero exercise. His hobbies involve sitting and building/painting little figures. His mother and father are equally slim (his Dad is nearly 60, just as tall and still as slim as ever). Other than walking, neither of them do formal exercise either. His two sisters are tall and slim too (guess what on the exercise?!) Take from the above what you wish, but I don't think Mr KC is going to acquire middle age spread, ever, no matter what he eats. " I think a couple of tv shows have done experiments around people who are different sizes and the beliefs that some people can eat more than others and still stay slim. I think the general gist of the conclusions was that slim people didn’t eat as many calories as they thought they did, and burnt off calories very well even when not excercising. And those that struggled to lose weight were underestimating how many calories that actually eat. I think the research around metabolic rates has shown that it’s set in people at a early age and doesn’t really change until you get towards you’re 60’s. There will be exceptions due to medical conditions and or medication they take. | |||
" I’d be more interested in hearing how you think certain people can just break these laws. No, there have been what they call twin studies (and others) where variations in ability to keep weight off have been observed. From what you say though, it suggests that people are all different "under the hood". The issue I have with your thermodynamics theory is not the law of physics itself. It's that you're applying it at such a high level, when actually what you probably have is lots of mechanisms at play that each comply with the law. Similarly different factors (eg hormones) that can affect when the law comes into play. Can you see that if you have lots of little thermodynamics "situations" in the body, the effect can be different to what is predicted my applying the law from 50000ft up? C. True, it’s massively overly simplified to say calories in calories out as if it’s one simple equation But the point of this is that you should be focusing entirely on that complex equation to make it work. Instead of debating whether keto is good or bad, or vegetarian is better then meat, or rice is better then bread, or whether eating before bed is bad, whatever none sense people focus on should instead be focused on making the equation work. Keto is good, intermittent fasting is good, slimming world is good, Vegan is good, it all works if you make calories in vs calories out work None of them are good if calorie in vs calories out doesn’t work People spend so much time majoring in the minors, if they focus on eating less and/or moving more, they’d get 90% of their goals Yes, calories in v out works, the reason why it might not for some is cos they dont spend enough time in a deficit as the respond time might be slower, it works for me and that is how I diet year round, to get shredded. I eat less and do alot of cardio for 6 months then I slowly maingain the other 6 months, also I dont do macros, all I do is to focus to hit my calorie limit and to make sure that I have enough protein and carbs in the meals
Out of interest, what would be your recommended reading list in the area of exercise and nutrition?
C. I dont have any recommendations, but I feel like that people in general are over complicating dieting
Nice dodge. Sounds like you don't really base your research around books? Diet is actually really complicated long term. Over a short period of time, calorie restriction can work, the problem is most people come off the wagon, either by choice or unintentionally eventually, and the rebound in weight gain often leaves them heavier than when they first started.
C. "I don’t think dieting is one size fits all but I think for the majority calorie restriction combined with lifestyle changes can work long term. Whilst I was dieting I restricted my calorific intake to 1000 calories per day and lost 8 stone in 5 months. That was a year ago now and I haven’t gained but I also didn’t return to my pre dieting habits. I now average around 2000 calories a day sometimes a bit more. I cannot emphasise how important mental health is in losing weight though. In the 5 years I was with my ex and unhappy I couldn’t shift the weight but when we split up I lost the weight quickly! | |||
| |||
"Out of interest. Who here uses or has used, either or it's own or in supplements, L-carnitine? C. " The scientific literature out there says "no scientific basis supports improvement in exercise performance for healthy individuals or athletes after carnitine supplementation. Moreover, considering that carnitine metabolism produces TMAO (trimethylamine N-oxide) which has been recently recognized as a novel risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, the use of uncontrolled amounts of carnitine as supplements must be carefully reviewed." So I'd be careful with supplementation especially if there's a family history of cardiovascular disease. | |||
| |||
| |||
" I’d be more interested in hearing how you think certain people can just break these laws. No, there have been what they call twin studies (and others) where variations in ability to keep weight off have been observed. From what you say though, it suggests that people are all different "under the hood". The issue I have with your thermodynamics theory is not the law of physics itself. It's that you're applying it at such a high level, when actually what you probably have is lots of mechanisms at play that each comply with the law. Similarly different factors (eg hormones) that can affect when the law comes into play. Can you see that if you have lots of little thermodynamics "situations" in the body, the effect can be different to what is predicted my applying the law from 50000ft up? C. True, it’s massively overly simplified to say calories in calories out as if it’s one simple equation But the point of this is that you should be focusing entirely on that complex equation to make it work. Instead of debating whether keto is good or bad, or vegetarian is better then meat, or rice is better then bread, or whether eating before bed is bad, whatever none sense people focus on should instead be focused on making the equation work. Keto is good, intermittent fasting is good, slimming world is good, Vegan is good, it all works if you make calories in vs calories out work None of them are good if calorie in vs calories out doesn’t work People spend so much time majoring in the minors, if they focus on eating less and/or moving more, they’d get 90% of their goals Yes, calories in v out works, the reason why it might not for some is cos they dont spend enough time in a deficit as the respond time might be slower, it works for me and that is how I diet year round, to get shredded. I eat less and do alot of cardio for 6 months then I slowly maingain the other 6 months, also I dont do macros, all I do is to focus to hit my calorie limit and to make sure that I have enough protein and carbs in the meals
Out of interest, what would be your recommended reading list in the area of exercise and nutrition?
C. I dont have any recommendations, but I feel like that people in general are over complicating dieting
Nice dodge. Sounds like you don't really base your research around books? Diet is actually really complicated long term. Over a short period of time, calorie restriction can work, the problem is most people come off the wagon, either by choice or unintentionally eventually, and the rebound in weight gain often leaves them heavier than when they first started.
C. "That is right and for me it is not complicated at all. I remember how my fitness jerney started. I was reading about sport nutrition and training in fitness magazines like the flex magazines in the 90's and that is how I learned about calories in v out and it have worked for me ever since, yes to stay sub 10% one will need will power | |||
"https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajpendo.00156.2017?rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed&url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org An interesting read if anyones got the time To summarise, the theory was that insulin was a driving factor in weight gain/loss. Lower insulin, lose weight, calories aren’t that important The findings? Calories are all that matters " This is a 2017 "article" and looks like an opinion piece reviewing various papers. I will take a look when I have a little more free time as it's going to take a bit of work like you suggest. I note the lead author looks like a sports scientist. C. | |||
"https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajpendo.00156.2017?rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed&url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org An interesting read if anyones got the time To summarise, the theory was that insulin was a driving factor in weight gain/loss. Lower insulin, lose weight, calories aren’t that important The findings? Calories are all that matters This is a 2017 "article" and looks like an opinion piece reviewing various papers. I will take a look when I have a little more free time as it's going to take a bit of work like you suggest. I note the lead author looks like a sports scientist. C. " This might be a more palatable read for most https://www.strongerbyscience.com/energy-balance-calories/ This is part 1 of a 3 part article on calories in vs calories out and how to make it work for you within a diet All their points are backed up with linked studies | |||
| |||
"Lol I was guilty of 8. 8 stone loss in about 5 months, year later I’m still slim though "No way did you lose 8 stone!!! | |||
"15. Don't force your children to always 'finish their plate' as it can set a lifetime habit of overeating." Definitely this! We practice this at home. I was always encouraged to finish everything on my plate because my Grandparents had suffered a lack of food as younger people and they made sure we knew about it. We were always told that someone in Ethiopia (or similar country) would be grateful for it etc. I recognise that probably contributed to my weight as a younger person and have struggled to get rid of it as an adult. | |||
" I’d be more interested in hearing how you think certain people can just break these laws. No, there have been what they call twin studies (and others) where variations in ability to keep weight off have been observed. From what you say though, it suggests that people are all different "under the hood". The issue I have with your thermodynamics theory is not the law of physics itself. It's that you're applying it at such a high level, when actually what you probably have is lots of mechanisms at play that each comply with the law. Similarly different factors (eg hormones) that can affect when the law comes into play. Can you see that if you have lots of little thermodynamics "situations" in the body, the effect can be different to what is predicted my applying the law from 50000ft up? C. True, it’s massively overly simplified to say calories in calories out as if it’s one simple equation But the point of this is that you should be focusing entirely on that complex equation to make it work. Instead of debating whether keto is good or bad, or vegetarian is better then meat, or rice is better then bread, or whether eating before bed is bad, whatever none sense people focus on should instead be focused on making the equation work. Keto is good, intermittent fasting is good, slimming world is good, Vegan is good, it all works if you make calories in vs calories out work None of them are good if calorie in vs calories out doesn’t work People spend so much time majoring in the minors, if they focus on eating less and/or moving more, they’d get 90% of their goals Yes, calories in v out works, the reason why it might not for some is cos they dont spend enough time in a deficit as the respond time might be slower, it works for me and that is how I diet year round, to get shredded. I eat less and do alot of cardio for 6 months then I slowly maingain the other 6 months, also I dont do macros, all I do is to focus to hit my calorie limit and to make sure that I have enough protein and carbs in the meals
Out of interest, what would be your recommended reading list in the area of exercise and nutrition?
C. I dont have any recommendations, but I feel like that people in general are over complicating dieting
Nice dodge. Sounds like you don't really base your research around books? Diet is actually really complicated long term. Over a short period of time, calorie restriction can work, the problem is most people come off the wagon, either by choice or unintentionally eventually, and the rebound in weight gain often leaves them heavier than when they first started.
C. That is right and for me it is not complicated at all. I remember how my fitness jerney started. I was reading about sport nutrition and training in fitness magazines like the flex magazines in the 90's and that is how I learned about calories in v out and it have worked for me ever since, yes to stay sub 10% one will need will power "I have big issues getting my science from journalists. No disrespect to them, but they are not impartial that often. 1000 calories is a little more civilised that the 600 of the FAST diet, but I see you're back up to 2000 now. The thing is with all of this, there are self-imposed restrictions and when these are removed and the body is allowed to consume what it wants all hell seems to break loose. Around the end of 2000, I managed to get down to 7.4% (too low if you ask me) and I didn't change my exercise routine. I just ate differently. I ate what I wanted, but I reduced my carb intake, especially sugar and cooked more from scratch. I don't and won't count calories or macros. What I find instructive is looking at people around the world who live the longest and seeing what they do. That said, there's no guarantee that what works for them will work for me. Genetics for example is a factor. C. | |||
"Out of interest. Who here uses or has used, either or it's own or in supplements, L-carnitine? C. The scientific literature out there says "no scientific basis supports improvement in exercise performance for healthy individuals or athletes after carnitine supplementation. Moreover, considering that carnitine metabolism produces TMAO (trimethylamine N-oxide) which has been recently recognized as a novel risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, the use of uncontrolled amounts of carnitine as supplements must be carefully reviewed." So I'd be careful with supplementation especially if there's a family history of cardiovascular disease. " Forgot to add reference, Gnoni et al, 2020 in Molecules which is an ok peer reviewed journal. | |||
"15. Don't force your children to always 'finish their plate' as it can set a lifetime habit of overeating. Definitely this! We practice this at home. I was always encouraged to finish everything on my plate because my Grandparents had suffered a lack of food as younger people and they made sure we knew about it. We were always told that someone in Ethiopia (or similar country) would be grateful for it etc. I recognise that probably contributed to my weight as a younger person and have struggled to get rid of it as an adult. " Same here! It's engrained in me to 'clean my plate', so I have to be careful with how much I put on it in the first place | |||
"15. Don't force your children to always 'finish their plate' as it can set a lifetime habit of overeating. Definitely this! We practice this at home. I was always encouraged to finish everything on my plate because my Grandparents had suffered a lack of food as younger people and they made sure we knew about it. We were always told that someone in Ethiopia (or similar country) would be grateful for it etc. I recognise that probably contributed to my weight as a younger person and have struggled to get rid of it as an adult. Same here! It's engrained in me to 'clean my plate', so I have to be careful with how much I put on it in the first place "I refuse to criticise my Grandparents though. They came from tough backgrounds and they did what they thought was best. Almost always, their best was exactly what we needed and they did a great job. Being a bit overweight in his twilight years actually helped my Grandad. He made it to 89, so he didn't do too badly! | |||
" Well said The method always works, eat less move more The things you do to reach that method are what fail. That’s the tricky part But don’t do yourself a disservice by just assuming eating less doesn’t work because your so special Instead look at what your doing and try to fix what’s going wrong. It’s a very common mindset I see in people trying to lose weight - “ I’m doing everything perfect the method just doesn’t work for me” There is nothing technically wrong with what you are saying but it isn't a useful view in my opinion. If I was designing a car to break a speed record and asked experts how to go about it and they said reduce losses from drag and put more fuel through the engine (basically the opposite of exercise more, eat less) they would of course be totally correct but not really much use. Of far more use would be a chemical engineer who showed how adding nitrous oxide in the right way produces more power or high speed modeling of the combustion process showed how I should re position the spark plugs and a computer scientist helping me control the time injection and spark timing to increase the amount of fuel I burn and a whole host of other suggestions. Ultimately these may well all come down to variations of 'get more fuel in the engine' but the person who gave that advice while being 100% correct is less useful to me than others who say that it isn't as simple as pouring in more fuel, you need to understand how that fuel is used. Maybe this analogy helps explain why people see your approach as unhelpful even though I totally agree that anyone who says it is incorrect doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics. Mr It’s useful because it makes people assess what they are doing wrong instead of falsely believing it just doesn’t work for them Not if the only way they know to calculate energy in is using the number of kcals on a food packet. It is quite possible to reduce that figure and increase exercise and still not lose weight. This doesn't contravene the laws of thermodynamics at all any more than pouring petrol through an engine that's running too rich without seeing any increase in power does. Mr We can agree to disagree there then
You don't believe it is possible to eat a diet that has a lower calorie figure (as specified on the packaging) but not loose weight? Are you saying the research that says metabolising protein requires a higher energy than metabolising refined carbs so that for fir every calorie of protein eaten you have less available to use/store than the comparable number of calories in say sugar?
You don't believe that a person can undergo hormonal changes that affect the efficiency of their metabolism such that they require less food to survive and even having dropped their calorie intake still gain weight?
Your equation calories in - calories out = weight loss (or gain) is only correct if you measure calories in at the level your body metabolises the energy and you include the energy requirements to do that metabolising in your calories out figure.
If you're working at the level of calories that go in the mouth the correct equation is
Calories you put in your mouth x efficiency of energy extraction in the gut - calories you poo without absorbing - calories out from staying alive - calories out from exercise = weight loss (or gain).
That figure for efficiency is a significant factor in weight loss. If it increases then the calories in the mouth figure needs to decrease simply to maintain a constant weight.
It is absolutely true that the answer is still reduce the calories in figure but it means that people can do that and see no result. The fact that they haven't reduced it enough doesn't make them a lier when they say "I've reduced my calorie intake and I haven't lost weight"
I will accept that too strong a belief in this can lead to using it as an excuse when it isn't warranted - hence what I said in my first post about neither side being prepared to see the truth in the others argument.
Mr
I don’t not believe any of that. I just believe that understanding and accepting that eating less and moving more always works is a very useful thing
Can you explain how the following fits in with your application of the first law of thermodynamics to ? There are people in the population who have low body fat as a percentage of their overall mass, they don't do any appreciable amounts of exercise and live off junk food and/or do not restrict their calorie intake at all. Somehow, they remain slim. Surely that breaches the first law of thermodynamics? I used to work with one such guy: ate MacDonalds for lunch most days and in fact ate whatever he wanted whenever he wanted. People in the office just couldn't understand how he stayed so thin.
C.
Either they are one of the lucky few that “run warm” - their body needs more calories to exist that others. Maybe they fidget a lot, they might actually run hotter, which takes more calories. It’s the same reason men on average burn more then women. So that is still true to the first law
Or, you aren’t as certain about their calorie intake as you think. Your making a lot of assumptions that certain people are eating a lot and not putting on weight. For example plenty of people will have McDonald’s for breakfast, then nothing until they finish work, a big dinner, a snack before bed and that’s it. To anyone looking in it looks like all they do is eat. But no one knows about him not eating from 7am till 6pm
Or that friend we all have that can eat a whole dominos every Friday. No one sees him having a cigarette and a coffee for breakfast then skip lunch. You’ve made assumptions and based them on fact
I’d be more interested in hearing how you think certain people can just break these laws.
OK. Heres an example. Carbs and protein both have 4 calories/gram
For simplicity sake we use a value of 250g of each. 1000 calories total.
Your body uses upto 1/3 more energy to process protein than carbohydrate.
So if your body needs 1000 energy units to process the carbohydrate, it will need 1333 energy units to process the same amount of protein.
Extrapolating out you can see that by changing the macro ratios of your food for the same calorie content you can use more or less energy.
Your thermodynamic laws do not really apply here.
A calorie as a unit of energy heating water is fine. But your body doesn't work that way. It's a chemical breakdown, not a furnace.
Why doesn’t it apply there?
The first law is that energy can’t be created or destroyed, only transfered
In terms of body weight, this translates to “you can’t gain mass without enough calories, and you can’t lose weight without cutting some calories”
Why does your protein scenario break that law? It’s well known that a higher protein diet with aid weight loss due to the increased energy required to use protein.
High protein diet = more calories out
So I’m not sure what you mean when you say one of the law of the universe doesn’t work because…. Protein? "I'm saying that a calorie is a standardised arbitrary figure that is applied to foods worked out in a lab. Your body is not a laboratory. You simply cannot apply the same equation to all 3 macros as far as energy availability goes. Your body deals with them very differently. Aside from your body requiring more energy to break down the same amount of protein compared to carbs you also have hormonal interactions, water retention with carbs amongst other things. That is even before you get into any form of nutrient absorption question. In short I am saying that your CICO "law of thermodynamics" is an oversimplified theory that has been peddled to sell a programme. If I was to simplify it even more I would be writing in crayon. | |||
"Lol I was guilty of 8. 8 stone loss in about 5 months, year later I’m still slim though
No way did you lose 8 stone!!! "Lol I did indeed! Went from 17 stone and and a size 16/18 to 9 stone and a size 8/10. I’m still that weight now | |||
" Well said The method always works, eat less move more The things you do to reach that method are what fail. That’s the tricky part But don’t do yourself a disservice by just assuming eating less doesn’t work because your so special Instead look at what your doing and try to fix what’s going wrong. It’s a very common mindset I see in people trying to lose weight - “ I’m doing everything perfect the method just doesn’t work for me” There is nothing technically wrong with what you are saying but it isn't a useful view in my opinion. If I was designing a car to break a speed record and asked experts how to go about it and they said reduce losses from drag and put more fuel through the engine (basically the opposite of exercise more, eat less) they would of course be totally correct but not really much use. Of far more use would be a chemical engineer who showed how adding nitrous oxide in the right way produces more power or high speed modeling of the combustion process showed how I should re position the spark plugs and a computer scientist helping me control the time injection and spark timing to increase the amount of fuel I burn and a whole host of other suggestions. Ultimately these may well all come down to variations of 'get more fuel in the engine' but the person who gave that advice while being 100% correct is less useful to me than others who say that it isn't as simple as pouring in more fuel, you need to understand how that fuel is used. Maybe this analogy helps explain why people see your approach as unhelpful even though I totally agree that anyone who says it is incorrect doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics. Mr It’s useful because it makes people assess what they are doing wrong instead of falsely believing it just doesn’t work for them Not if the only way they know to calculate energy in is using the number of kcals on a food packet. It is quite possible to reduce that figure and increase exercise and still not lose weight. This doesn't contravene the laws of thermodynamics at all any more than pouring petrol through an engine that's running too rich without seeing any increase in power does. Mr We can agree to disagree there then
You don't believe it is possible to eat a diet that has a lower calorie figure (as specified on the packaging) but not loose weight? Are you saying the research that says metabolising protein requires a higher energy than metabolising refined carbs so that for fir every calorie of protein eaten you have less available to use/store than the comparable number of calories in say sugar?
You don't believe that a person can undergo hormonal changes that affect the efficiency of their metabolism such that they require less food to survive and even having dropped their calorie intake still gain weight?
Your equation calories in - calories out = weight loss (or gain) is only correct if you measure calories in at the level your body metabolises the energy and you include the energy requirements to do that metabolising in your calories out figure.
If you're working at the level of calories that go in the mouth the correct equation is
Calories you put in your mouth x efficiency of energy extraction in the gut - calories you poo without absorbing - calories out from staying alive - calories out from exercise = weight loss (or gain).
That figure for efficiency is a significant factor in weight loss. If it increases then the calories in the mouth figure needs to decrease simply to maintain a constant weight.
It is absolutely true that the answer is still reduce the calories in figure but it means that people can do that and see no result. The fact that they haven't reduced it enough doesn't make them a lier when they say "I've reduced my calorie intake and I haven't lost weight"
I will accept that too strong a belief in this can lead to using it as an excuse when it isn't warranted - hence what I said in my first post about neither side being prepared to see the truth in the others argument.
Mr
I don’t not believe any of that. I just believe that understanding and accepting that eating less and moving more always works is a very useful thing
Can you explain how the following fits in with your application of the first law of thermodynamics to ? There are people in the population who have low body fat as a percentage of their overall mass, they don't do any appreciable amounts of exercise and live off junk food and/or do not restrict their calorie intake at all. Somehow, they remain slim. Surely that breaches the first law of thermodynamics? I used to work with one such guy: ate MacDonalds for lunch most days and in fact ate whatever he wanted whenever he wanted. People in the office just couldn't understand how he stayed so thin.
C.
Either they are one of the lucky few that “run warm” - their body needs more calories to exist that others. Maybe they fidget a lot, they might actually run hotter, which takes more calories. It’s the same reason men on average burn more then women. So that is still true to the first law
Or, you aren’t as certain about their calorie intake as you think. Your making a lot of assumptions that certain people are eating a lot and not putting on weight. For example plenty of people will have McDonald’s for breakfast, then nothing until they finish work, a big dinner, a snack before bed and that’s it. To anyone looking in it looks like all they do is eat. But no one knows about him not eating from 7am till 6pm
Or that friend we all have that can eat a whole dominos every Friday. No one sees him having a cigarette and a coffee for breakfast then skip lunch. You’ve made assumptions and based them on fact
I’d be more interested in hearing how you think certain people can just break these laws.
OK. Heres an example. Carbs and protein both have 4 calories/gram
For simplicity sake we use a value of 250g of each. 1000 calories total.
Your body uses upto 1/3 more energy to process protein than carbohydrate.
So if your body needs 1000 energy units to process the carbohydrate, it will need 1333 energy units to process the same amount of protein.
Extrapolating out you can see that by changing the macro ratios of your food for the same calorie content you can use more or less energy.
Your thermodynamic laws do not really apply here.
A calorie as a unit of energy heating water is fine. But your body doesn't work that way. It's a chemical breakdown, not a furnace.
Why doesn’t it apply there?
The first law is that energy can’t be created or destroyed, only transfered
In terms of body weight, this translates to “you can’t gain mass without enough calories, and you can’t lose weight without cutting some calories”
Why does your protein scenario break that law? It’s well known that a higher protein diet with aid weight loss due to the increased energy required to use protein.
High protein diet = more calories out
So I’m not sure what you mean when you say one of the law of the universe doesn’t work because…. Protein?
I'm saying that a calorie is a standardised arbitrary figure that is applied to foods worked out in a lab. Your body is not a laboratory. You simply cannot apply the same equation to all 3 macros as far as energy availability goes. Your body deals with them very differently. Aside from your body requiring more energy to break down the same amount of protein compared to carbs you also have hormonal interactions, water retention with carbs amongst other things. That is even before you get into any form of nutrient absorption question.
In short I am saying that your CICO "law of thermodynamics" is an oversimplified theory that has been peddled to sell a programme.
If I was to simplify it even more I would be writing in crayon."We can agree to disagree then I posted the 1st part of a 3 part article further up that goes into great detail with the entire CICO of your interested Weirdly enough though, the entire idea of CICO isn’t to peddle a program. It’s the opposite. It’s that you need no program or special diet or detox teas or magical formulas. You just need a calorie deficit | |||
| |||
"Imagine trying to use the CICO method to “peddle a program” Wanna try this brand new weight loss program ? Just eat less! " I've seen trainers use it. So yes, it does get pushed. | |||
"Imagine trying to use the CICO method to “peddle a program” Wanna try this brand new weight loss program ? Just eat less! I've seen trainers use it. So yes, it does get pushed." Trainers telling someone that one’s to lose weight to lower their calories? What next? Telling them to exercise?! This needs to stop | |||
| |||
" Well said The method always works, eat less move more The things you do to reach that method are what fail. That’s the tricky part But don’t do yourself a disservice by just assuming eating less doesn’t work because your so special Instead look at what your doing and try to fix what’s going wrong. It’s a very common mindset I see in people trying to lose weight - “ I’m doing everything perfect the method just doesn’t work for me” There is nothing technically wrong with what you are saying but it isn't a useful view in my opinion. If I was designing a car to break a speed record and asked experts how to go about it and they said reduce losses from drag and put more fuel through the engine (basically the opposite of exercise more, eat less) they would of course be totally correct but not really much use. Of far more use would be a chemical engineer who showed how adding nitrous oxide in the right way produces more power or high speed modeling of the combustion process showed how I should re position the spark plugs and a computer scientist helping me control the time injection and spark timing to increase the amount of fuel I burn and a whole host of other suggestions. Ultimately these may well all come down to variations of 'get more fuel in the engine' but the person who gave that advice while being 100% correct is less useful to me than others who say that it isn't as simple as pouring in more fuel, you need to understand how that fuel is used. Maybe this analogy helps explain why people see your approach as unhelpful even though I totally agree that anyone who says it is incorrect doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics. Mr It’s useful because it makes people assess what they are doing wrong instead of falsely believing it just doesn’t work for them Not if the only way they know to calculate energy in is using the number of kcals on a food packet. It is quite possible to reduce that figure and increase exercise and still not lose weight. This doesn't contravene the laws of thermodynamics at all any more than pouring petrol through an engine that's running too rich without seeing any increase in power does. Mr We can agree to disagree there then
You don't believe it is possible to eat a diet that has a lower calorie figure (as specified on the packaging) but not loose weight? Are you saying the research that says metabolising protein requires a higher energy than metabolising refined carbs so that for fir every calorie of protein eaten you have less available to use/store than the comparable number of calories in say sugar?
You don't believe that a person can undergo hormonal changes that affect the efficiency of their metabolism such that they require less food to survive and even having dropped their calorie intake still gain weight?
Your equation calories in - calories out = weight loss (or gain) is only correct if you measure calories in at the level your body metabolises the energy and you include the energy requirements to do that metabolising in your calories out figure.
If you're working at the level of calories that go in the mouth the correct equation is
Calories you put in your mouth x efficiency of energy extraction in the gut - calories you poo without absorbing - calories out from staying alive - calories out from exercise = weight loss (or gain).
That figure for efficiency is a significant factor in weight loss. If it increases then the calories in the mouth figure needs to decrease simply to maintain a constant weight.
It is absolutely true that the answer is still reduce the calories in figure but it means that people can do that and see no result. The fact that they haven't reduced it enough doesn't make them a lier when they say "I've reduced my calorie intake and I haven't lost weight"
I will accept that too strong a belief in this can lead to using it as an excuse when it isn't warranted - hence what I said in my first post about neither side being prepared to see the truth in the others argument.
Mr
I don’t not believe any of that. I just believe that understanding and accepting that eating less and moving more always works is a very useful thing
Can you explain how the following fits in with your application of the first law of thermodynamics to ? There are people in the population who have low body fat as a percentage of their overall mass, they don't do any appreciable amounts of exercise and live off junk food and/or do not restrict their calorie intake at all. Somehow, they remain slim. Surely that breaches the first law of thermodynamics? I used to work with one such guy: ate MacDonalds for lunch most days and in fact ate whatever he wanted whenever he wanted. People in the office just couldn't understand how he stayed so thin.
C.
Either they are one of the lucky few that “run warm” - their body needs more calories to exist that others. Maybe they fidget a lot, they might actually run hotter, which takes more calories. It’s the same reason men on average burn more then women. So that is still true to the first law
Or, you aren’t as certain about their calorie intake as you think. Your making a lot of assumptions that certain people are eating a lot and not putting on weight. For example plenty of people will have McDonald’s for breakfast, then nothing until they finish work, a big dinner, a snack before bed and that’s it. To anyone looking in it looks like all they do is eat. But no one knows about him not eating from 7am till 6pm
Or that friend we all have that can eat a whole dominos every Friday. No one sees him having a cigarette and a coffee for breakfast then skip lunch. You’ve made assumptions and based them on fact
I’d be more interested in hearing how you think certain people can just break these laws.
OK. Heres an example. Carbs and protein both have 4 calories/gram
For simplicity sake we use a value of 250g of each. 1000 calories total.
Your body uses upto 1/3 more energy to process protein than carbohydrate.
So if your body needs 1000 energy units to process the carbohydrate, it will need 1333 energy units to process the same amount of protein.
Extrapolating out you can see that by changing the macro ratios of your food for the same calorie content you can use more or less energy.
Your thermodynamic laws do not really apply here.
A calorie as a unit of energy heating water is fine. But your body doesn't work that way. It's a chemical breakdown, not a furnace.
Why doesn’t it apply there?
The first law is that energy can’t be created or destroyed, only transfered
In terms of body weight, this translates to “you can’t gain mass without enough calories, and you can’t lose weight without cutting some calories”
Why does your protein scenario break that law? It’s well known that a higher protein diet with aid weight loss due to the increased energy required to use protein.
High protein diet = more calories out
So I’m not sure what you mean when you say one of the law of the universe doesn’t work because…. Protein?
I'm saying that a calorie is a standardised arbitrary figure that is applied to foods worked out in a lab. Your body is not a laboratory. You simply cannot apply the same equation to all 3 macros as far as energy availability goes. Your body deals with them very differently. Aside from your body requiring more energy to break down the same amount of protein compared to carbs you also have hormonal interactions, water retention with carbs amongst other things. That is even before you get into any form of nutrient absorption question.
In short I am saying that your CICO "law of thermodynamics" is an oversimplified theory that has been peddled to sell a programme.
If I was to simplify it even more I would be writing in crayon.
We can agree to disagree then
I posted the 1st part of a 3 part article further up that goes into great detail with the entire CICO of your interested
Weirdly enough though, the entire idea of CICO isn’t to peddle a program. It’s the opposite. It’s that you need no program or special diet or detox teas or magical formulas. You just need a calorie deficit "On a side note, surely I win a prize for the longest ever quotation on Fab  | |||
| |||
"Does eating my way through a box of chocolates count as a mistake?" Not if you skip* whilst eating them. *But PLEASE be sensible and don't chøke | |||
"Lol I was guilty of 8. 8 stone loss in about 5 months, year later I’m still slim though
No way did you lose 8 stone!!!
Lol I did indeed! Went from 17 stone and and a size 16/18 to 9 stone and a size 8/10. I’m still that weight now "Thats absolutely amazing!! Im a bit of a cuddly guy hahaha im just over 17st. But we'll done you!! | |||
"Out of interest. Who here uses or has used, either or it's own or in supplements, L-carnitine? C. The scientific literature out there says "no scientific basis supports improvement in exercise performance for healthy individuals or athletes after carnitine supplementation. Moreover, considering that carnitine metabolism produces TMAO (trimethylamine N-oxide) which has been recently recognized as a novel risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, the use of uncontrolled amounts of carnitine as supplements must be carefully reviewed." So I'd be careful with supplementation especially if there's a family history of cardiovascular disease. Forgot to add reference, Gnoni et al, 2020 in Molecules which is an ok peer reviewed journal. " Yep. I started taking it a while back but stopped. All I've heard is bad. I don't do any supplements now. Too risky. C. | |||
 | |||
"Lol I was guilty of 8. 8 stone loss in about 5 months, year later I’m still slim though
No way did you lose 8 stone!!!
Lol I did indeed! Went from 17 stone and and a size 16/18 to 9 stone and a size 8/10. I’m still that weight now
Thats absolutely amazing!! Im a bit of a cuddly guy hahaha im just over 17st.
But we'll done you!! "Yes, well done for the weight loss | |||
| |||
" Well said The method always works, eat less move more The things you do to reach that method are what fail. That’s the tricky part But don’t do yourself a disservice by just assuming eating less doesn’t work because your so special Instead look at what your doing and try to fix what’s going wrong. It’s a very common mindset I see in people trying to lose weight - “ I’m doing everything perfect the method just doesn’t work for me” There is nothing technically wrong with what you are saying but it isn't a useful view in my opinion. If I was designing a car to break a speed record and asked experts how to go about it and they said reduce losses from drag and put more fuel through the engine (basically the opposite of exercise more, eat less) they would of course be totally correct but not really much use. Of far more use would be a chemical engineer who showed how adding nitrous oxide in the right way produces more power or high speed modeling of the combustion process showed how I should re position the spark plugs and a computer scientist helping me control the time injection and spark timing to increase the amount of fuel I burn and a whole host of other suggestions. Ultimately these may well all come down to variations of 'get more fuel in the engine' but the person who gave that advice while being 100% correct is less useful to me than others who say that it isn't as simple as pouring in more fuel, you need to understand how that fuel is used. Maybe this analogy helps explain why people see your approach as unhelpful even though I totally agree that anyone who says it is incorrect doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics. Mr It’s useful because it makes people assess what they are doing wrong instead of falsely believing it just doesn’t work for them Not if the only way they know to calculate energy in is using the number of kcals on a food packet. It is quite possible to reduce that figure and increase exercise and still not lose weight. This doesn't contravene the laws of thermodynamics at all any more than pouring petrol through an engine that's running too rich without seeing any increase in power does. Mr We can agree to disagree there then
You don't believe it is possible to eat a diet that has a lower calorie figure (as specified on the packaging) but not loose weight? Are you saying the research that says metabolising protein requires a higher energy than metabolising refined carbs so that for fir every calorie of protein eaten you have less available to use/store than the comparable number of calories in say sugar?
You don't believe that a person can undergo hormonal changes that affect the efficiency of their metabolism such that they require less food to survive and even having dropped their calorie intake still gain weight?
Your equation calories in - calories out = weight loss (or gain) is only correct if you measure calories in at the level your body metabolises the energy and you include the energy requirements to do that metabolising in your calories out figure.
If you're working at the level of calories that go in the mouth the correct equation is
Calories you put in your mouth x efficiency of energy extraction in the gut - calories you poo without absorbing - calories out from staying alive - calories out from exercise = weight loss (or gain).
That figure for efficiency is a significant factor in weight loss. If it increases then the calories in the mouth figure needs to decrease simply to maintain a constant weight.
It is absolutely true that the answer is still reduce the calories in figure but it means that people can do that and see no result. The fact that they haven't reduced it enough doesn't make them a lier when they say "I've reduced my calorie intake and I haven't lost weight"
I will accept that too strong a belief in this can lead to using it as an excuse when it isn't warranted - hence what I said in my first post about neither side being prepared to see the truth in the others argument.
Mr
I don’t not believe any of that. I just believe that understanding and accepting that eating less and moving more always works is a very useful thing
Can you explain how the following fits in with your application of the first law of thermodynamics to ? There are people in the population who have low body fat as a percentage of their overall mass, they don't do any appreciable amounts of exercise and live off junk food and/or do not restrict their calorie intake at all. Somehow, they remain slim. Surely that breaches the first law of thermodynamics? I used to work with one such guy: ate MacDonalds for lunch most days and in fact ate whatever he wanted whenever he wanted. People in the office just couldn't understand how he stayed so thin.
C.
Either they are one of the lucky few that “run warm” - their body needs more calories to exist that others. Maybe they fidget a lot, they might actually run hotter, which takes more calories. It’s the same reason men on average burn more then women. So that is still true to the first law
Or, you aren’t as certain about their calorie intake as you think. Your making a lot of assumptions that certain people are eating a lot and not putting on weight. For example plenty of people will have McDonald’s for breakfast, then nothing until they finish work, a big dinner, a snack before bed and that’s it. To anyone looking in it looks like all they do is eat. But no one knows about him not eating from 7am till 6pm
Or that friend we all have that can eat a whole dominos every Friday. No one sees him having a cigarette and a coffee for breakfast then skip lunch. You’ve made assumptions and based them on fact
I’d be more interested in hearing how you think certain people can just break these laws.
OK. Heres an example. Carbs and protein both have 4 calories/gram
For simplicity sake we use a value of 250g of each. 1000 calories total.
Your body uses upto 1/3 more energy to process protein than carbohydrate.
So if your body needs 1000 energy units to process the carbohydrate, it will need 1333 energy units to process the same amount of protein.
Extrapolating out you can see that by changing the macro ratios of your food for the same calorie content you can use more or less energy.
Your thermodynamic laws do not really apply here.
A calorie as a unit of energy heating water is fine. But your body doesn't work that way. It's a chemical breakdown, not a furnace.
Why doesn’t it apply there?
The first law is that energy can’t be created or destroyed, only transfered
In terms of body weight, this translates to “you can’t gain mass without enough calories, and you can’t lose weight without cutting some calories”
Why does your protein scenario break that law? It’s well known that a higher protein diet with aid weight loss due to the increased energy required to use protein.
High protein diet = more calories out
So I’m not sure what you mean when you say one of the law of the universe doesn’t work because…. Protein?
I'm saying that a calorie is a standardised arbitrary figure that is applied to foods worked out in a lab. Your body is not a laboratory. You simply cannot apply the same equation to all 3 macros as far as energy availability goes. Your body deals with them very differently. Aside from your body requiring more energy to break down the same amount of protein compared to carbs you also have hormonal interactions, water retention with carbs amongst other things. That is even before you get into any form of nutrient absorption question.
In short I am saying that your CICO "law of thermodynamics" is an oversimplified theory that has been peddled to sell a programme.
If I was to simplify it even more I would be writing in crayon.
We can agree to disagree then
I posted the 1st part of a 3 part article further up that goes into great detail with the entire CICO of your interested
Weirdly enough though, the entire idea of CICO isn’t to peddle a program. It’s the opposite. It’s that you need no program or special diet or detox teas or magical formulas. You just need a calorie deficit
On a side note, surely I win a prize for the longest ever quotation on Fab "Yes, it is the largest ever quotation I have seen too, which is good and yes, a price too. I also like what coach greg sais about calorie deficit, calories in v out, what you need to know, but dont wanna hear | |||
