all posts post new thread

Nutrition The Calorie (long article)

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

Neuro-Bob

Level 10 Valued Member
Death of the calorie

Interesting article about the history of the calorie traced through nutrition. From the slant of “there’s more to weight loss or gain than energy imbalance” which is an opinion I tend to hold.

For as scientific as many like to pretend nutrition is, this quote essentially boils down my view on why anecdotes are far more important than published studies or doctor/government recommendations:

“No other field of science or medicine sees such a lack of rigorous studies,” says Tim Spector, a professor of genetic epidemiology at Kings College in London.

Haven’t read it all but will continue to slog through. It’s quite long.
 
Many of us know instinctively that not all calories are the same.

And yet...you have to start somewhere. I agree with the article premise to an extent, but it is still a valid comparative metric, just not the best absolute metric (doesn't exist currently).
 
It seems as clear as anything can be that calories in / calories out is only part of the body weight / body composition equation. I know from my own personal experiments how difficult it is on a ketogenic diet to put on body fat despite consuming excessive calories. Clearly the body was doing something else with those calories, at least for the couple of weeks those experiments lasted. Much research attests to this and to a range of responses available to the human body in the face of calorie surplus (and deficit) but it is also clear that for most people most of the time they will be over-fat or lean based on their calorific intake
 
My only real gripe with the cal in/cal out idea is that, while factually accurate, people often go about it in a way that alters their baseline metabolism, but fail to account for that in their calculations. Our Mr. Camacho is a prime example. He could drop his calories all he wanted, but his body could just dial down his metabolism to match his intake. Eventually you hit a wall where it becomes very difficult to eat less.
Compare that with any one of the literally dozens of approaches that function by creating a state of low insulin and high glucagon, which allow us to feel satisfied while eating less with very little effort. An athlete fine tuning their bodyweight is one thing, but an average Joe or Jane who needs to drop 60 pounds is quite another. I would argue that a focus on calories does the latter a disservice. A bit like yelling instructions for the butterfly stroke to a drowning person, instead of throwing them the ring buoy that's right next to us.
 
there’s more to weight loss or gain than energy imbalance

That there is doesn't negate energy value.

Those who like nothing better than a good old food fight there is a Joe Rogan podcast this week. In one corner, Gary Taubes (low carb, calories don't matter) v Stephan Guyenet (upholding the view that it is more complex). Obesity that is. Some background:

One of the most important science debates of the decade. Gary Taubes versus Stephan Guyenet, March 19th, on the Joe Rogan Experience. Why this is so important.

....get the popcorn in, settle in for a good fight...
My prediction: Taubes will get angry and shouty. Guyenet will respond with balance and nuance.
The argument will not be settled.
It's all a bit Brexit-ey.
Place your bets.....
 
My only real gripe with the cal in/cal out idea is that, while factually accurate, people often go about it in a way that alters their baseline metabolism, but fail to account for that in their calculations.

Under Reporting

Under reporting is one of the main issues with counting calories.

That is one of the main reason that mice, as you know, in research studies.

You can control a moused total diet and environment. Once a person walk out the door, you have no idea what they did.

Is the most effective weight-loss strategy really that hard? New study shows dietary self-monitoring takes less than 15 minutes a day

Date:February 25, 2019

Source: University of Vermont

Summary:

Dietary self-monitoring is the best predictor of weight-loss success. But the practice is viewed as so unpleasant and time-consuming, many would-be weight-losers won't adopt it. New research shows for the first time how little time it actually takes: 14.6 minutes per day on average. The frequency of monitoring, not the time spent on the process, was the key factor for those in the study who successfully lost weigh.

"Successful people are willing to do what unsuccessful people won't."

This appears to be the take home message on the research above.

Snowman, post: 230119, member: 4564"]Mr. Camacho is a prime example. He could drop his calories all he wanted, but his body could just dial down his metabolism to match his intake. Eventually you hit a wall where it becomes very difficult to eat less.

Decreasing Calorie, Decreases Metabolic Rate

Yes, one of the main issues with anyone who goes on a diet is that at some point it stops working. Most individual will then decrease their caloric intake even more; reaching another weight loss plateau.

As you noted, at some point, dropping calories even more drop your metabolic rate into the toilet.

Research show...

Intermittent energy restriction improves weight loss efficiency in obese men: the MATADOR study. - PubMed - NCBI

The Cliff Notes in this is adaptation to a lower calorie intake occurs is around 2 weeks; The General Adaptation Syndrome.

That means at around the two week mark weight loss pretty much stops.

The research demonstrated that Calorie Rotation ensured greater fat loss and more muscle mass retention.

This was accomplished by decreasing your calories below maintenance for two weeks. Then going back to maintenance for two weeks; alternating these cycles.

Compare that with any one of the literally dozens of approaches that function by creating a state of low insulin and high glucagon, which allow us to feel satisfied while eating less with very little effort.

Insulin Resistance

A diet that lower insulin and increases glucagon, etc is one of the primary keys for most individual who are Insulin Resistance.

However, Mark Haub's (MS Nutrition/University of Kansas) "Twinkie Diet" demonstrated by decreasing calories, that you can lose weight eating junk food; just less of it.

Optimizing Weight Loss

1) Calories need to be counted.

2) You're food choices (low glycemic index carbohydrates) matter.

3) Some type of Calorie Rotation. Calorie Rotation adheres to the General Adaptation Syndrome; which Periodization Training is based on.

As someone once said, "Everything works but nothing works for ever". When something stops working, you need to change something.

The Harder You Make Something

I get that you're not a fan counting calories because the majority of individual won't do it; the harder you make something, the less likely someone will maintain it.

A good general rule for carbohydrates is "Thing of Color"; low glycemic index carbohydrate which are almost always low in calories.

Kenny Croxdale
 
Last edited:
Whereas the laws of thermodynamics have been rigorously studied and upheld....

Just sayin'...

My only real gripe with the cal in/cal out idea is that, while factually accurate, people often go about it in a way that alters their baseline metabolism, but fail to account for that in their calculations.

I think the key to make calorie counting work is to be strong and fit. If you are trained, you have some control to avoid your metabolism from dropping just by training. If a sedentary person restricts calories, her/his metabolism is free to drop to the floor.

I think this is why bodybuilders have such a precise control over their body weight and composition. They can control their metabolism by training and their intake by counting calories.
 
If you are trained, you have some control to avoid your metabolism from dropping just by training. If a sedentary person restricts calories, her/his metabolism is free to drop to the floor.
I think this is huge. Ironically, plain ol' calorie restriction seems to be more effective the healthier someone is, and pretty ineffective when people have really deranged metabolisms. Maybe that's one reason why it get's propagated so often; the experts who push calorie restriction have had good personal experiences with it, because they're healthy, fit people.
 
So... do you think that if a person has the 'discipline' to get fit, they also have the discipline to make calorie restriction work?
Is that what it comes down to, or are there other things at play here?
 
Is that what it comes down to, or are there other things at play here?
I think there's a bit of a self feeding cycle going on. The healthier someone is, the better calorie restriction works, meaning that the level of discipline needed is much less. We could theorize that, based on someone's self discipline, there is a certain amount of initial health needed in order to make calorie restriction work. More discipline means you need less initial health, and vice versa. The problem is this: at a certain point of poor health, discipline becomes irrelevant. When your body is responding to something in a manner completely opposite of the way it's supposed to, doing the ineffective thing "better" isn't really helpful.
I don't buy the idea that people are fat because they're lazy and stupid. I know my share of overweight folks. Some are pretty pathetic, but some are incredibly focused and disciplined. Most are somewhere in between. I can't prove this, but I would bet a group of 1,000 obese people and 1,000 slim people have the same proportions of losers, achievers, and regular folks.
Losers will find all sorts of ways to die early; if it's not metabolic dysfunction (and the associated vascular disease, cancer, etc) it will just be alcohol, tobacco, hard drugs, or not wearing a seat belt. But that fact that we have brilliant, successful people dealing with severe metabolic dysfunction should be telling us something important. Our approach to health is such even those people have a difficult time figuring out how to make themselves healthy. We have, on an international scale, developed an understanding of lifestyle health that is neither useful nor effective. Thinking about food as calories instead of hormonal drivers is, in my opinion, one small part of that.
 
My only real gripe with the cal in/cal out idea is that, while factually accurate, people often go about it in a way that alters their baseline metabolism, but fail to account for that in their calculations. Our Mr. Camacho is a prime example. He could drop his calories all he wanted, but his body could just dial down his metabolism to match his intake. Eventually you hit a wall where it becomes very difficult to eat less.
Compare that with any one of the literally dozens of approaches that function by creating a state of low insulin and high glucagon, which allow us to feel satisfied while eating less with very little effort. An athlete fine tuning their bodyweight is one thing, but an average Joe or Jane who needs to drop 60 pounds is quite another. I would argue that a focus on calories does the latter a disservice. A bit like yelling instructions for the butterfly stroke to a drowning person, instead of throwing them the ring buoy that's right next to us.

I've never understood the dialing down metabolism thing.

He's still breathing he's still moving around and I bet his body temperature is still the same.

What form does dialing down metabolism take?
 
Just a very personal view here, and it's Sunday night and I'm feeling grumpy so I'm going to vent.

In my opinion telling an obese person that they're obese because they don't have the willpower / discipline to eat less is about as helpful as telling someone with depression that they're depressed because they don't have the willpower / discipline to be happy.

Discuss.
 
In my opinion telling an obese person that they're obese because they don't have the willpower / discipline to eat less is about as helpful as telling someone with depression that they're depressed because they don't have the willpower / discipline to be happy.

Discuss.
My suggestion is to tell an obese person that they are sedentary and should lift weights. Everything will fall into place afterwards.
 
It might... it might not. You could just as easily tell them to eat less, and expect everything to fall into place. Unless said person actually lifts the weights or actually eats less then nothing is going to happen. And besides there is way more to it than that I think.
The whole thing has a lot of moving parts, a lot of complexity.
I mentioned discipline earlier... that's not 'the answer' either.
 
The whole thing has a lot of moving parts, a lot of complexity.
I digress and here is where being strong is the holy grail.

Let's say an overweight person trains for a while and reaches 1.8 x(target bodyweight) squat + equivalent bench press + 90 min MAF SLD per week. How long is it going to be until body fat is reasonable?
 
He's still breathing he's still moving around and I bet his body temperature is still the same.
Don't be so sure about the last one. Poor cold tolerance is a pretty common issue with caloric restriction. I talk a lot about metabolism, but every once in a while I wonder if I should explain what that actually means. Metabolism essentially the sum total of every chemical reaction that occurs in your body. The majority of these reactions are influenced by hormones. Actually, that's kind of the definition of hormones; chemicals that trigger a specific series of chemical reactions. Many of these reactions require energy to occur. If you restrict the energy input to an organism, one way for it to respond is to reduce the rate of energy demanding reactions. Simple things like body temp regulation, hair and nail growth, skin turnover, general function of the kidneys, liver, and brain...The chemical reactions supporting all these processes, and many more, can be dialed back in response to perceived starvation.

In my opinion telling an obese person that they're obese because they don't have the willpower / discipline to eat less is about as helpful as telling someone with depression that they're depressed because they don't have the willpower / discipline to be happy.
Agreed. Even in the rare instance where someone has a clear weight loss goal and a good plan regarding how to achieve it, they still have to reverse multiple decades of behaviors and coping mechanisms. Saying that it takes willpower is like saying that Death Valley gets a little warm in August.

@Oscar I'm not sure I completely agree with you. Strong does fix many things, and all other things being equal, a fitter person will almost always be healthier. That being said, if you look at strongman, powerlifting, and American football, I think you can see plenty of very strong people who are, frankly, not likely to see their 60th birthday.
I do see where you're coming from, though. Compared to the typical calorie burning hamster wheel program people typically go to, strength training is often far more effective for weight loss. But why is that? Because resistance training does a better job of improving testosterone, growth hormone, insulin sensitivity, etc (at least that my opinion). In other words, it more effectively targets hormones. If I'm driving my hormones in one direction using exercise, but still eating garbage that pushes those hormones in the opposite direction, my problem isn't really going to go away.
 
That being said, if you look at strongman, powerlifting, and American football, I think you can see plenty of very strong people who are, frankly, not likely to see their 60th birthday.
I think we can all agree that these examples choose to over eat, and they have the tools to return to a healthy size of they choose to do so. Additionally, are these fellas doing the 90 minute slow cardio per week?

We can always say that there will be one poor poor person who lifts heavy, does cardio and eats well, and still can't lose weight. But is that person statistically relevant or is he/she the 0.01%? Are we not confusing the other 99.99% by discussing the exeption rather than the norm?
 
I think we can all agree that these examples choose to over eat, and they have the tools to return to a healthy size of they choose to do so.
This is a good point.

I think where our opinions diverge is about which lifestyle change causes the biggest hormonal shift (forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth). Adjusting both food and activity, as well as sleep and major causes of emotional stress, will all cause changes that alter the path of someone's health. I would contend that, of these four factors, nutrition is usually the one that's in the worst shape, and therefore the one that will yield the best results when improved. Any one of the four, if completely neglected, can drag a person down quite far regardless of how well the other three are doing.

Tangent:
There's some extra nuance in that a very poor diet can cause effective exercise to be very difficult, by causing excessive inflammation and making it difficult to recover. We see the same with people who are very sleep deprived or under severe duress. If the system is under enough stress, for whatever reason, exercise can be counter-productive. To be fair, this isn't all that common, but common enough to make me think twice about telling people to make exercise their first priority if they want to lose weight. There are no prerequisites for sleeping better, improving relationships, or eating better food, but there is such a thing as being too sick to train (though walking might be the exception here).
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom