 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / November 2004biggest loser - strange stuff
I happened to catch the surreal "reality" show The Biggest Loser last night. Really interesting stuff. These overweight people are placed on classic calorie restricted diets and are made to go through heavy "calorie-burning" workouts. The theory being that a caloric deficit leads to weight loss. Apparently at the first weigh-in, all the participants lost considerable amounts of weight. Most in the low double digits. Between 10 and 20 or more lbs. This re-inforces the idea that restricting calories and increasing calorie burning activities leads to weight loss. As expected, right? But at the second weigh-in an odd thing happened. The individuals either lost very small amounts of weight, in the 3 or so lb range, lost no weight at all or actually gained a lb or three. Now that is strange. They continued to restrict calories and they continued to "burn" a lot of calories in their workouts. Their caloric deficits would have stayed relatively consistent from the very beginning right up to the second weigh-in but their weight loss did not. Hmmmmmm. I thought that a daily caloric deficit would lead to a steady weight loss. Just like a daily caloric excess will lead to a steady weight increase. That is the formula isn't it. Too many calories equals weight gain, too little calories equals weight loss. I am told repeatedly that there is no other factor that affects weight gain or loss nearly as much as calories. Their caloric deficit was constant and consistent and their weight loss should have been constant and consistent, but it most definitely was not. Even considering the probability of water loss, their weight loss was not consistent and has apparently come to a screeching halt. Interesting. TC That is not uncommon. The first several days of a weight loss program frequently results in water loss which does not necessarily continue later on. Ora >I happened to catch the surreal "reality" show The Biggest Loser last >night. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >TC >That is not uncommon. The first several days of a weight loss program >frequently results in water loss which does not necessarily continue later on. > >Ora Have you told him this before, Ora? I could have sworn I've seen several do that in the archives. He's been a perisitent pusher of his low carb mantra, hasn't he! >>That is not uncommon. The first several days of a weight loss program >>frequently results in water loss which does not necessarily continue [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > several do that in the archives. He's been a perisitent pusher of his > low carb mantra, hasn't he! Did you miss the several posts in which he insisted that HIV doesn't cause AIDS? >>>That is not uncommon. The first several days of a weight loss program >>>frequently results in water loss which does not necessarily continue [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Did you miss the several posts in which he insisted that HIV doesn't cause >AIDS? No, I missed that gem. Did he have a rationale, or was it just a feeling he had? >>Did you miss the several posts in which he insisted that HIV doesn't >>cause AIDS? > > No, I missed that gem. Did he have a rationale, or was it just a > feeling he had? He just spouted standard HIV denialist rhetoric. >I happened to catch the surreal "reality" show The Biggest Loser last >night. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >"calorie-burning" workouts. The theory being that a caloric deficit >leads to weight loss. More than a theory, really, as nothing has EVER contradicted it. (when measured properly, of course) >Apparently at the first weigh-in, all the participants lost >considerable amounts of weight. Most in the low double digits. Between >10 and 20 or more lbs. This re-inforces the idea that restricting >calories and increasing calorie burning activities leads to weight >loss. As expected, right? Well it did, although we were not told what the weight that was lost consisted of. >But at the second weigh-in an odd thing happened. The individuals >either lost very small amounts of weight, in the 3 or so lb range, >lost no weight at all or actually gained a lb or three. And they had been locked away and definitely did not break their regime? But of course, if they had lost some water and glycogen in the first weigh in, the second would not be too surprising. This demonstrates admirably the need to measure accurately and to determine accurately what the weight lost consists of. This is the usual problem with these unscientific demonstrations. So long as compliance was OK. >Now that is strange. They continued to restrict calories and they >continued to "burn" a lot of calories in their workouts. Their caloric >deficits would have stayed relatively consistent from the very >beginning right up to the second weigh-in but their weight loss did >not. Hmmmmmm. And you have not had the biochemistry of this common phenomenon explained to you? Hmmmmmm. >I thought that a daily caloric deficit would lead to a steady weight >loss. Well fat storage loss, actually, and it does. (when measured properly) Are you sure you have not heard of this complication of just using gross weight changes? I could have sworn... >Just like a daily caloric excess will lead to a steady weight >increase. As will drinking lots of water, or replenishing glycogen stores, or... >That is the formula isn't it. Too many calories equals >weight gain, too little calories equals weight loss. "Fat store" gain or loss, actually, but now you know and hopefully won't make this mistake again. >I am told >repeatedly that there is no other factor that affects weight gain or >loss nearly as much as calories. But haven't you been told a whole lot more? So why do you persist with this rather obvious little canard? >Their caloric deficit was constant and consistent and their weight >loss should have been constant and consistent, but it most definitely >was not. See above. I guess it wasn't. >Even considering the probability of water loss, their weight >loss was not consistent and has apparently come to a screeching halt. Does water not weigh? >Interesting. Really? I'm sure I've seen it in the archives here many times before. I must do another search when time permits. BTW, please tell me what you are having further problems with regarding energy balance. I am anxious to help you. > >I happened to catch the surreal "reality" show The Biggest Loser last > >night. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > More than a theory, really, as nothing has EVER contradicted it. > (when measured properly, of course) So you are suggesting that the measurement was wrong. How is that possible? The equation is - calorie deficit = weight loss. They ate less and exercised more and there was either a little weight loss, no weight loss or a small weight gain. The scale does not lie, does it? It is as straightforward a measurement as is possible. And as straightforward an application of the caloric deficit methodology as is possible. > >Apparently at the first weigh-in, all the participants lost > >considerable amounts of weight. Most in the low double digits. Between [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well it did, although we were not told what the weight that was lost > consisted of. Doesn't matter what the weight consisted of. If the body is at a caloric deficit it can do nothing but get smaller and if it is in caloric excess it can do nothing but get larger. If there is a caloric deficit the body must use up all the intake for energy and then use its own stores of fat. It is the law of thermodynamics. The body cannot create mass from a caloric deficit, period. > >But at the second weigh-in an odd thing happened. The individuals > >either lost very small amounts of weight, in the 3 or so lb range, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > usual problem with these unscientific demonstrations. So long as > compliance was OK. The measurements were done before they started on their diets, after the first period of time and at the end of the second period of time, using the same scale. They are being taped and monitored constantly. Do you have any evidence that they did break their regime? Plus they have much more incentive to stick to it. I would think that compliance would be much greater than in the real world. > >Now that is strange. They continued to restrict calories and they > >continued to "burn" a lot of calories in their workouts. Their caloric [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And you have not had the biochemistry of this common phenomenon > explained to you? Hmmmmmm. I've yet to have it adequately explained. Feel free to try. > >I thought that a daily caloric deficit would lead to a steady weight > >loss. > > Well fat storage loss, actually, and it does. (when measured properly) > Are you sure you have not heard of this complication of just using > gross weight changes? I could have sworn... How can the body create any mass in a caloric deficit state. According to the law of thermo, you cannot create something out of nothing. All energy must be accounted for. If you run a calculable caloric deficit, you must lose a mathematically calculable amount of weight. It's a basic law of physics. > >Just like a daily caloric excess will lead to a steady weight > >increase. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > BTW, please tell me what you are having further problems with > regarding energy balance. I am anxious to help you. Please point to any post in the archives that explains it in detail. Obviously I am having problems regarding the energy balance concept as applied to weight loss. Instead of re-iterating that an explanation exists, why do you not simply state how the energy balance equation works regarding weight loss? Or point me to it. You keep repeating that the explanation was posted but you fail to tell me where or you fail to provide the explanation. Interesting. TC Very true. Calorie deficit = weight loss. The formula is wrong getting there. Calories burned are higher for many reason that they don't figure on. When you deprive calories your body goes into economy mode and the calories burned or used goes down. Your hair and nails stop growing and many other things happen. Your brain shuts down and you become a Newsgroup poster. > > >I happened to catch the surreal "reality" show The Biggest Loser last > > >night. [quoted text clipped - 125 lines] > > TC >> >I happened to catch the surreal "reality" show The Biggest Loser last >> >night. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >So you are suggesting that the measurement was wrong. Yes. (or the compliance -- there appear to be plenty of areas of vagueness) Also plenty of omitted measurement. >How is that possible? Is this a serious question? >The equation is - calorie deficit = weight loss. Simplistically, yes. The "weight" will be a gram for every four calories of glycogen and a gram for every 9 calories of fat. There is also the concomitant muscle loss with other weight loss, and the water and supportive tissue associated with all of this, but yes, your equation is correct. >They ate >less and exercised more and there was either a little weight loss, no >weight loss or a small weight gain. See above. Your confusion appears to be not distinguishing between gross weight and fat store weight. >The scale does not lie, does it? Nope, but it only shows "gross weight" change. >It is as straightforward a measurement as is possible. Of the gross weight, it certainly is. >And as >straightforward an application of the caloric deficit methodology as >is possible. Not really, it measures gross weight (reasonably accurately) Period! >> >Apparently at the first weigh-in, all the participants lost >> >considerable amounts of weight. Most in the low double digits. Between [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Doesn't matter what the weight consisted of. Um, yes it does. See above. The aim of the exercise is to lose fat stores. >If the body is at a >caloric deficit it can do nothing but get smaller and if it is in >caloric excess it can do nothing but get larger. Not the body necessarily, but the fat/glycogen stores. >If there is a caloric >deficit the body must use up all the intake for energy and then use >its own stores of fat. Yes. But of course meals are a bolus dose of energy, and energy use is continuous over time. A meal's energy will be typically stored and then mobilised. But yes. I agree >It is the law of thermodynamics. Well an application of this. The conservation of energy. An amount of energy (say 1000calories) can not reduce or increase. You must account for every single calorie. If you do something and you can only account for 990 calories, you have made an error because that 10 calories still exists and your calculations/measurements MUST be wrong! >The body >cannot create mass from a caloric deficit, period. Of course it can, but not of energy-containing molecules. Water is a non-energy-containing molecule. Every litre weighs 2.2 lbs! >> >But at the second weigh-in an odd thing happened. The individuals >> >either lost very small amounts of weight, in the 3 or so lb range, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >using the same scale. They are being taped and monitored constantly. >Do you have any evidence that they did break their regime? No, but more importantly, do you have a shred of evidence that any calories were created or destroyed? What else was measured? >Plus they have much more incentive to stick to it. I would think that >compliance would be much greater than in the real world. Quite possibly, but compliance is a very difficult problem. The human animal is very prone to fool itself and rationalise, but then this is only one of many explanations of what you seem to see as an anomaly. Again, what else was measured? >> >Now that is strange. They continued to restrict calories and they >> >continued to "burn" a lot of calories in their workouts. Their caloric [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >I've yet to have it adequately explained. Feel free to try. You seem to think that weight = fat. It certainly doesn't. You also are citing a crude experiment where all the variables have not been measured. What was the caloric content of these folks' faeces, urine sweat, radiation and so on? You have measured a few parameters, and when you find an apparent anomaly, seem to claim that the laws of thermodynamics have been broken. You wrote above:"Their caloric deficits would have stayed relatively consistent from the very beginning right up to the second weigh-in but their weight loss did not." This is a very brave assumption without all the parameters being accurately measured. You don't even know the composition of the gross weight loss here. >> >I thought that a daily caloric deficit would lead to a steady weight >> >loss. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >How can the body create any mass in a caloric deficit state. The caloric deficit state has certainly not been established here as I've tried to explain above, and water has zero calories per gram. >According >to the law of thermo, you cannot create something out of nothing. Correct. So where have you established that fat molecules have been created from nothing? You are using gross weight for fat store, and your calorie inputs and outputs are only approximately known, or completely unknown. >All >energy must be accounted for. If you run a calculable caloric deficit, >you must lose a mathematically calculable amount of weight. It's a >basic law of physics. Absolutely, and almost none of that was done here. >> >Just like a daily caloric excess will lead to a steady weight >> >increase. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >Please point to any post in the archives that explains it in detail. Sorry, I've seen them while browsing but really have no spare time at the moment to look for them again -- work calls :-). I've explained it again, I'll just leave it there for the moment. Maybe someone else can explain this further to you. >Obviously I am having problems regarding the energy balance concept as >applied to weight loss. Yes, but if you grasp two main points, you should understand better: 1. gross weight gain/loss is not the same as fat/glycogen store gain/loss 2. Energy balance sheets comprise many more measurements than just estimates of calories put in your mouth, and the change on the bathroom scales >Instead of re-iterating that an explanation >exists, why do you not simply state how the energy balance equation >works regarding weight loss? Well I've just tried, several times, I thought. Please pose any questions again that arise from these explanations. >Or point me to it. You keep repeating >that the explanation was posted but you fail to tell me where or you >fail to provide the explanation. Really? >Interesting. Really!! > >> >I happened to catch the surreal "reality" show The Biggest Loser last > >> >night. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Yes. (or the compliance -- there appear to be plenty of areas of > vagueness) Also plenty of omitted measurement. But the trend is obvious. Less calories consumed and more calories expended is supposed to lead to weight loss, period. It isn't vague at all. And what measurement was omitted? The concept is simplicity itself. The more caloric deficit the more weight loss. > >How is that possible? > > Is this a serious question? Yes it is. What measurement was wrong and how is it possible to mis-read a scale? > >The equation is - calorie deficit = weight loss. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and supportive tissue associated with all of this, but yes, your > equation is correct. Then how is it possible for someone to maintain a reasonably consistent caloric deficit over a period of time and have the weight loss not be reasonably consistent or even have weight-loss be non-existent or worse yet, to actually put on a few lbs. The "caloric-deficit equals weight-loss" concept implies a linear relationship. It is supposed to be simple math, maintain a caloric deficit of X number of calories and you will lose Y numbers of pounds. What is it, 9000 calories in a kilogram of fat, right, roughly 4000 calories in a lb of fat, right? Simple math. Simple concept, laws of thermo, right? > >They ate > >less and exercised more and there was either a little weight loss, no [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nope, but it only shows "gross weight" change. Why is it limited to fat weight. The laws of physics say that you cannot gain any mass if the intake of energy is less than is needed to maintain the system in a neutral state. They are consuming less calories and expending more, therefore, theoretically they are in a constant calorie deficit state. There is no excess calories to convert into mass, fat or protein or anything else, gross or otherwise. > >It is as straightforward a measurement as is possible. > > Of the gross weight, it certainly is. see above. > >And as > >straightforward an application of the caloric deficit methodology as > >is possible. > > Not really, it measures gross weight (reasonably accurately) Period! see above. > >> >Apparently at the first weigh-in, all the participants lost > >> >considerable amounts of weight. Most in the low double digits. Between [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Not the body necessarily, but the fat/glycogen stores. How do you explain weight gain in a constant caloric deficit state? > >If there is a caloric > >deficit the body must use up all the intake for energy and then use [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > for 990 calories, you have made an error because that 10 calories > still exists and your calculations/measurements MUST be wrong! Exactly. If you are in an obvious and constant caloric deficit state, and you have accomplished this by obviously consuming a low calorie diet and by obviously working out constantly (thus burning more calories), as they are doing on this show, then you cannot account for any weigh gain (where did those calories come from?), you cannot account for failure to lose weight. The only result that is mathematically possible is a weight loss. In this scenario, it is very very unlikely that your caloric calculations are wrong. How could they be? Their diets are monitored. They are being monitored for cheating. And it is even less likely that the weight measurements are wrong, *same* scale from beginning to end. If the caloric calculation are resonably accurate and indicate an obvious caloric deficit and the scales are of sufficient quality to provide a reasonably consistent measurement, then you have to accept that the calculations are indicative of a consistent caloric deficit state and the scale measurements are more than adequate enough to clearly indicate the weight trend. > >The body > >cannot create mass from a caloric deficit, period. > > Of course it can, but not of energy-containing molecules. Water is a > non-energy-containing molecule. Every litre weighs 2.2 lbs! And your point? > >> >But at the second weigh-in an odd thing happened. The individuals > >> >either lost very small amounts of weight, in the 3 or so lb range, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > No, but more importantly, do you have a shred of evidence that any > calories were created or destroyed? What else was measured? It appears that by your insistence that the laws of thermo apply directly to weight management and the evidence of this obvious mathematical anomaly, that the only way these people could gain weight is if mass was created in the absence of the necessary energy. How is this possible? Either the laws of thermo applies or it doesn't. > >Plus they have much more incentive to stick to it. I would think that > >compliance would be much greater than in the real world. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > only one of many explanations of what you seem to see as an anomaly. > Again, what else was measured? Compliance, in this case, seems to not be an issue. They are being closely monitored. The producers appear to be looking for cheating. Cheating would be just the thing to create tension and conflict and thus make for on-air ratings-grabbing fireworks. The human animal is very prone to fool itself and rationalize. Which explains why some people will adhere to such stupid, outdated and unrealistic nonsense in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary. The laws of thermo are not directly and mathematically applicable to accurately and consistently predict weight gain or loss in humans using the currently accepted caloric values of food. Weight was measured. In a caloric-deficit state, weight must decrease. It's the law. > >> >Now that is strange. They continued to restrict calories and they > >> >continued to "burn" a lot of calories in their workouts. Their caloric [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > accurately measured. You don't even know the composition of the gross > weight loss here. There is the problem. You seem to think that I am saying that the laws of thermo have been broken and that I am saying that the body did, in fact, created something out of nothing or, conversely, that energy can dissappear. Because you adhere to the laws of thermo as being directly and mathematically applicable to predict weight in humans, this is the only logic you can understand. What I am saying is this. The body is not a simple black box. It is not a simple closed mechanical system where the energy-in is easily calculated by reading numbers off a food calorie value table, nor is the energy-expended is easily calculated. The body can use up all the energy in a given food.... or not. It can use it for energy or for tissue rebuilding, depending on the state of the body and the hormonal effects of the foods eaten. A high-refined-carb diet will cause a high blood glucose level which will trigger insulin spikes which will in turn trigger fat storage regardless of any caloric deficit or excess. The body will never be able to get more calories from food than is physically and mathematically possible, hence the applicability of the laws of thermo to the human body. And it will never make energy dissappear into nothing. But it can extract the energy it needs, use the various nutrients for tissue maintenance and other processes, and then lose the excess energy and excess nutrients thru a myriad of processes like those you mentioned: "faeces, urine sweat, radiation and so on?". The laws of thermo predict the maximum energy available in the food, and nothing else. It cannot be used to predict fat storage or fat loss in humans. The numbers are way too simplistic to account for the incredibly complex and adaptable workings of the human metabolism. And for someone to try to give some sense of validity to the ridiculously simplistic notion of the calorie theory is truly idiotic. If it was as simple as calories-in vs calories-out, anyone who wanted to be thin and put in even a moderate amount of effort would be thin. But that isn't the case, is it? > >> >I thought that a daily caloric deficit would lead to a steady weight > >> >loss. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Absolutely, and almost none of that was done here. The trends are obvious. They restricted calories in and increased calories out. That should have lead to weight loss. > >> >Just like a daily caloric excess will lead to a steady weight > >> >increase. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > it again, I'll just leave it there for the moment. Maybe someone else > can explain this further to you. Whay can you people not simply answer "I don't know". It would at least make you look honest. > >Obviously I am having problems regarding the energy balance concept as > >applied to weight loss. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > estimates of calories put in your mouth, and the change on the > bathroom scales But the concept is simple, caloric deficit equals weight-loss. It ain't supposed to be complicated. But somehow it always is, isn't it? Especially when it does not work in the real world. > >Instead of re-iterating that an explanation > >exists, why do you not simply state how the energy balance equation > >works regarding weight loss? > > Well I've just tried, several times, I thought. > Please pose any questions again that arise from these explanations. No you haven't. You thought wrong. How does the body detect it's caloric state, whether a deficit or excess. And once the caloric state is detected what are the bio-chemical changes that trigger fat storage or fat burning as a direct result of the caloric state? How exactly does this work and where do the caloric state fit within the various metabolic processes? > >Or point me to it. You keep repeating > >that the explanation was posted but you fail to tell me where or you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Really!! > Why is it limited to fat weight. The laws of physics say that you > cannot gain any mass if the intake of energy is less than is needed to Or the intake of mass, such as the mass of water. > maintain the system in a neutral state. They are consuming less > calories and expending more, therefore, theoretically they are in a > constant calorie deficit state. There is no excess calories to convert > into mass, fat or protein or anything else, gross or otherwise. > Exactly. If you are in an obvious and constant caloric deficit state, > and you have accomplished this by obviously consuming a low calorie [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > account for failure to lose weight. The only result that is > mathematically possible is a weight loss. Assuming water levels stay constant, yes. >> >The body >> >cannot create mass from a caloric deficit, period. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And your point? That you can make yourself weigh more by consuming more water, and you can make yourself weigh less by excreting more water. Any high-school wrestler knows that. And the changes in weight are completely independent of energy intake. Water in your bloodstream, tissues, GI tract, and bladder pushes down on the scale and makes the numbers go up. Water in the plumbing system doesn't. > The body can use up all the energy in a given food.... or not. It can > use it for energy or for tissue rebuilding, depending on the state of > the body and the hormonal effects of the foods eaten. A > high-refined-carb diet will cause a high blood glucose level which > will trigger insulin spikes which will in turn trigger fat storage > regardless of any caloric deficit or excess. Leaving aside the fact that the insulin spikes only occur in people with metabolic syndrome, if the person is running a caloric deficit then that fat will later get "unstored", i.e. burned for energy. If the person does have metabolic syndrome, he'll get pretty hungry by the time that happens, and there's a very good chance he'll consume some more energy at that point. But if he resists his hunger, his level of fat will go down. > If it was as simple as calories-in vs calories-out, anyone who wanted > to be thin and put in even a moderate amount of effort would be thin. > But that isn't the case, is it? Do a google search for the term "pro-ana" and then read the Web forums it brings up. You'll see quite a few posts from people who have been *very* successful at getting *very* thin by doing exactly that. > How does the body detect it's caloric state, whether a deficit or > excess. And once the caloric state is detected what are the > bio-chemical changes that trigger fat storage or fat burning as a > direct result of the caloric state? How exactly does this work and > where do the caloric state fit within the various metabolic processes? If you aren't satisfied with the explanation you got a few days ago, get any biochemistry textbook and read it. Even one written 40 years ago (when the professor who wrote it wouldn't have gotten much research money from Big Pharma). > > > Why is it limited to fat weight. The laws of physics say that you [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > the professor who wrote it wouldn't have gotten much research money from > Big Pharma). For the umpteenth time, your "explanation" was not an explanation as much as it was an exercise in logic based on an assumption that leads to the logic, re-iterated ad-infinitum. I've read a good number of bio-chem textbooks, newer ones and older ones, and not a single one of them showed clearly a direct bio-chemical link between calories, caloric state detection (ie. excess or deficit), and the caloric state inducing fat storage or loss. There is no bio-chemical process or any other bio-chemical mechanism that explains, in detail, how the body can specifically detect an excess or deficit of calories and there is no process whereby the body, as a result of detecting an excess or deficit of calories, then triggers fat storage. It is all a figment of false logic based on false assumptions. The assumption being that the laws of thermo can be directly applied to mathematically predict weight loss or gain by counting calories-in vs calories-out. It is impractical. It does not work in the real world. Yes, the laws of thermo apply to the human body. It just does not apply in such a way that we can count calories-in and calories-out and predict weight gain or loss. If it was that simple then everyone and anyone who counted calories would be thin. That is my last word on this discussion with you. Take it or leave it. TC >> If you aren't satisfied with the explanation you got a few days ago, get >> any biochemistry textbook and read it. Even one written 40 years ago (when [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >excess or deficit), and the caloric state inducing fat storage or >loss. Did you not understand my explanation? Forget calories, the body does not actually measure them. It is concentrations of molecular species that the biochemistry "detects". >There is no bio-chemical process or any other bio-chemical >mechanism that explains, in detail, how the body can specifically >detect an excess or deficit of calories and there is no process >whereby the body, as a result of detecting an excess or deficit of >calories, then triggers fat storage. That's correct. As I explained to you, and you apparently missed. It is not calories but concentrations of different molecules. Are you sure there are not two tcomeaux on this group? You seem to post messages as though you have not seen those you have already posted. >It is all a figment of false logic based on false assumptions. The >assumption being that the laws of thermo can be directly applied to >mathematically predict weight loss or gain by counting calories-in vs >calories-out. It is impractical. It does not work in the real world. Soirry, can you show any evidence that it does not? All properly measured experiments show a precise relationship between stored molecules with high energy and net energy consumption. >Yes, the laws of thermo apply to the human body. It just does not >apply in such a way that we can count calories-in and calories-out and >predict weight gain or loss. If it was that simple then everyone and >anyone who counted calories would be thin. Are you sure you are not having short-term memory lapses? I've explained this all to you fully several times. >That is my last word on this discussion with you. Take it or leave it. You appear to never read what is posted by others in response to your questions, or you morph into another poster who has not been in ths discussion. And why do you ask questions and then when a careful explanation is posted in response, you appear to "go to ground" and not even acknowledge the trouble folks go to on your behalf? And then, when they ask if you've see the explanation, you insult them. What exactly are you here for? I'm puzzled. >> >> >I happened to catch the surreal "reality" show The Biggest Loser last >> >> >night. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >But the trend is obvious. Less calories consumed and more calories >expended is supposed to lead to weight loss, period. Yes, absolutely, but, as I've said, so long as your "weight" refers to fat and glycogen molecules stored. >It isn't vague at all. Not when worded correctly, no. >And what measurement was omitted? I've already mentioned some, but the energy excreted in urine, faeces etc, and energy lost by radiation. Then there is accurate determination of exactly what the weight change consisted of. >The concept is simplicity itself. Yep, when worded correctly. >The more caloric deficit the more weight loss. Yep the more energy store loss. >> >How is that possible? >> >> Is this a serious question? > >Yes it is. What measurement was wrong and how is it possible to >mis-read a scale? Well setting aside that bathroom scales are often rather inaccurate, the measurements of energy in the food ingested was apparently not done. I imagine that tables of averages were used. The amount of energy expended was not measured but estimated from tables of rough approximations. Just about everything except the gross weight change was only roughly approximated. >> >The equation is - calorie deficit = weight loss. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >loss not be reasonably consistent or even have weight-loss be >non-existent or worse yet, to actually put on a few lbs. I've already explained that a couple of times and just here again. The assumptions made about calorie deficits and the assumptions made of what exactly was lost (qualitatively) are open to strong dispute, scientifically. >The >"caloric-deficit equals weight-loss" concept implies a linear >relationship. Calorie balance and energy storage molecules are directly proportional. Yes, but this study didn't measure these and so can really not draw any conclusions on this matter. And as it was actually a study of dydlipidaemia, I'm not surprised. >It is supposed to be simple math, maintain a caloric >deficit of X number of calories and you will lose Y numbers of pounds. Of energy molecules stored. And it is a simple piece of arithmetic. Unfortunately, the numbers needed to do this simple sum are not available here. >What is it, 9000 calories in a kilogram of fat, right, roughly 4000 >calories in a lb of fat, right? Simple math. Simple concept, laws of >thermo, right? Yes. But as I've tried to get through to you, you haven't got the numbers here. >> >They ate >> >less and exercised more and there was either a little weight loss, no [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Why is it limited to fat weight. And glycogen. In fact although the body doesn't store energy as muscle, muscle protein if lost or gained will have a weight effect of about 4 cal per gram of the protein involved. >The laws of physics say that you >cannot gain any mass if the intake of energy is less than is needed to >maintain the system in a neutral state. No they don't. That will only apply to energy storage molecules. I would have though someone as experienced as you at thinking about this would have this simple concept under his belt. >They are consuming less >calories and expending more, therefore, theoretically they are in a >constant calorie deficit state. There is no excess calories to convert >into mass, fat or protein or anything else, gross or otherwise. Water? For instance? >> >It is as straightforward a measurement as is possible. >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >How do you explain weight gain in a constant caloric deficit state? The caloric deficit has certainly not beeen established, but even if it had been, water can account for a considerable proportion of the gross weight. >> >If there is a caloric >> >deficit the body must use up all the intake for energy and then use [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Exactly. If you are in an obvious and constant caloric deficit state, Not obvious at all. As I've explained above. It is really only a rough guess. >and you have accomplished this by obviously consuming a low calorie >diet How low, exactly? >and by obviously working out constantly (thus burning more >calories), How many more though? >as they are doing on this show, That is far fom being established. >then you cannot account for >any weigh gain (where did those calories come from?), Making the bold assumption that the weight gain actually involved any calories... >you cannot >account for failure to lose weight. The only result that is >mathematically possible is a weight loss. Given the correct starting figures, yes, but GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) Your raw data is crap (pardon the technical language) >In this scenario, it is very very unlikely that your caloric >calculations are wrong. No, calculators today are very reliable :-) >How could they be? Ummm, garbage for raw data, perhaps? >Their diets are monitored. But not measured for energy content? >They are being monitored for cheating. Fine, if you say so. Umm, what can I sell you.. >And it is even less likely that >the weight measurements are wrong, *same* scale from beginning to end. Yep, we will give them the benfit of the doubt here and deem the scaled accurate to eleven decimal places :-) But what have they actually weighed? >If the caloric calculation are resonably accurate and indicate an >obvious caloric deficit and the scales are of sufficient quality to >provide a reasonably consistent measurement, then you have to accept >that the calculations are indicative of a consistent caloric deficit >state and the scale measurements are more than adequate enough to >clearly indicate the weight trend. Yes. Although as explained, the calorie deficit has NOT been established with any accuracy, and the weight change has not been analysed. BTW, were these folk on the stage for the entire time of the show? >> >The body >> >cannot create mass from a caloric deficit, period. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >And your point? You honestly can't see it? You measured weight. How much of it was water? >> >> >But at the second weigh-in an odd thing happened. The individuals >> >> >either lost very small amounts of weight, in the 3 or so lb range, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >is if mass was created in the absence of the necessary energy. How is >this possible? Either the laws of thermo applies or it doesn't. How many calories are required to add 5 kg of water to the body? >> >Plus they have much more incentive to stick to it. I would think that >> >compliance would be much greater than in the real world. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Compliance, in this case, seems to not be an issue. If you say so. >They are being >closely monitored. 24/7? >The producers appear to be looking for cheating. Well then, it COULDN'T have occurred!!! :-) >Cheating would be just the thing to create tension and conflict and >thus make for on-air ratings-grabbing fireworks. Yep.. >The human animal is very prone to fool itself and rationalize. Which >explains why some people will adhere to such stupid, outdated and >unrealistic nonsense in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary. Huh? What evidence are you trying to burdon us with here? That's the beauty of science. It short circuits (ao to speak) this self delucional tendency of all human beings. So where is the science here? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. >The laws of thermo are not directly and mathematically applicable to >accurately and consistently predict weight gain or loss in humans >using the currently accepted caloric values of food. Actually, if you realise what you are doing, and this crew patently do not, the laws of thermodynamics apply to absolutely everything. Nothing has ever been shown to breach them in a couple of hundred years of diligemnt trying. That is why they have been elevated to the status of "Laws". They apply when you put in accurate data of a closed system, and by closed it means that all parameters are measured -- all energy in and out is accurately measured (or otherwise known) >Weight was measured. In a caloric-deficit state, weight must decrease. >It's the law. See above. That is NOT what the law states. It only applies to energy. >> >> >Now that is strange. They continued to restrict calories and they >> >> >continued to "burn" a lot of calories in their workouts. Their caloric [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >and mathematically applicable to predict weight in humans, this is the >only logic you can understand. I'm afraid that I've seen in the archives that you disagree with the conservation of energy, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have learned that the laws of thermo always apply. I still can't undertsand why you can't see that nett energy IN will exactly equate to a known number of energy storing molecules in the body. What goes along with these is very variable. But of course in this poor little experiment, you don't even have much of the necessary raw data. >What I am saying is this. The body is not a simple black box. Ah but it is. Everything on this Earth is. Just because it is complex and difficult to measure, does not mean that it does not adhere to all the known physical and chemical rules of the universe. >It is >not a simple closed mechanical system where the energy-in is easily >calculated by reading numbers off a food calorie value table, nor is >the energy-expended is easily calculated. By "calculated", you surely mean "measured". You are correct. It is expensive and difficult to measure all these with any degree of accuracy. Every time it has, however, the laws of the Universe are upheld, precisely. >The body can use up all the energy in a given food.... or not. Yep, and if it uses less, then that excretion of energy will be measured and accounted for. Such as a diabetic losing weight coz he is piddling out glucose and thereby losing energy. > It can >use it for energy or for tissue rebuilding, depending on the state of >the body and the hormonal effects of the foods eaten. Well more the hormonal effects of the body because of the status of the different molecules absorbed (not just ingested, mind) in relation to the bodies status of awake, sleeping, working hard, stresssed etc >A >high-refined-carb diet will cause a high blood glucose level which >will trigger insulin spikes which will in turn trigger fat storage >regardless of any caloric deficit or excess. Nope. In normal folk, the glucose levels are tighly controlled. There are many foods (steak) that will boost insulin levels temporarily, but diet has very little effect on blood glucose in the normal person. Now in the diabetic.... >The body will never be able to get more calories from food than is >physically and mathematically possible, hence the applicability of the >laws of thermo to the human body. And it will never make energy >dissappear into nothing. Correct. >But it can extract the energy it needs, use the various nutrients for >tissue maintenance and other processes, and then lose the excess >energy and excess nutrients thru a myriad of processes like those you >mentioned: "faeces, urine sweat, radiation and so on?". But of course, it normally doesn't. It stores the energy for a rainy day. That is a survival technic that we have evolved to have and has been very beneficial in the past, but rather a problem for modern man. >The laws of thermo predict the maximum energy available in the food, >and nothing else. No, they do much more. The conservation of energy one tells us that if X calories go in, and Y come out, then X-Y will be stored. The weight of these storage molecules will be accurately known, so long as we know which types are involved. >It cannot be used to predict fat storage or fat loss >in humans. Of course it can, because the steady state human takes in X, uses Y and then stores Z. X=Y+Z There is virtually none excreteted in the steady state human. Of course, if this human suddenly increases this or that component of his food, some more might be wasted, but in steady state, virtually none is wasted. The human body is very efficientat capturing valuable energy. >The numbers are way too simplistic to account for the >incredibly complex and adaptable workings of the human metabolism. Complex for sure, but X=Y+Z is the bottom line. >And for someone to try to give some sense of validity to the >ridiculously simplistic notion of the calorie theory is truly idiotic. When you don't understand the overall thing. You seem to be not seeing the forest, just a lot of trees and they are confusing you. >If it was as simple as calories-in vs calories-out, anyone who wanted >to be thin and put in even a moderate amount of effort would be thin. And they always are, unless they are ill. The effort to achieve a long term calorie deficit is very very difficult for most folk. Hence the failure rate of ninety-odd percent. >But that isn't the case, is it? Very few who try succeed in creating and enegy deficit. It is very difficult. >> >> >I thought that a daily caloric deficit would lead to a steady weight >> >> >loss. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >The trends are obvious. Trends are only valid when the raw data is valid. GIGO. >They restricted calories in and increased >calories out. That should have lead to weight loss. Yep, but as they really didn't know what the energy balance parameters were, they really have NO predictive validity. >> >> >Just like a daily caloric excess will lead to a steady weight >> >> >increase. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >Whay can you people not simply answer "I don't know". It would at >least make you look honest. I do know. I'm having difficulty explaining it to you, because you seem to keep moving the goalposts. Your undertstanding of some basic chemical principles seems rather poor. I keep suggesting to you that you bone up on the basics, and then look at some of the explanations that you have been given and then it should all be clearer. >> >Obviously I am having problems regarding the energy balance concept as >> >applied to weight loss. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >But the concept is simple, caloric deficit equals weight-loss. Again, not necessarily. Fat storage molecule, yes, spot on. Gross weight could be anything. If you are constipated, or just had a bulky meal, there could be several pounds or more just in the GI tract. That is not actually bodyweight, but the scales will weigh it and thus be several pounds out and that is just one possible reason for the anomaly you see. There are many more which I have tried to explain to you. >It >ain't supposed to be complicated. Sorry, where does it say that? Life is complicated. >But somehow it always is, isn't it? Yep. Beautiful, isn't it? >Especially when it does not work in the real world. What doesn''t work. Despite a few flaws of engineering, the human body is a wonderful mechanism in my estimation. >> >Instead of re-iterating that an explanation >> >exists, why do you not simply state how the energy balance equation [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >No you haven't. You thought wrong. I underestimated your problem, and I apologise for that, but please bone up on the basics of biochemisty and physiology. It will help you enormously to understand these problems that you seem so enmeshed in. >How does the body detect it's caloric state, whether a deficit or >excess. Did you not read my explanation in anoher thread? Apparently not. The body does not measure calories per se. It does not see an energy excess or deficit. It sees lesser or greater amounts (concentrations) of molecules which contain (in their bonds) different amounts of measurable energy. If there is too much say glucose in the blood steram, very quickly things happen to absorb this excess. Many places it can go. Similarly, if there is a lot of fat in the bloodstream, it will tend to be taken up by the fat cells (lipocytes). If there is a shortage of glucose, then the body detects this by the concentration of the glucose molecules remaining and certain things happen as a consequence of this dearth of glucose and you are made to feel hungry and the liver will pump out more glucose. So it is the concentration of various energy containing molecules in the blood stream that the body can detect and appear like it is measuring calories and saying "Ohoh, I need some more calories, or I have too many, better put some in the bank account". >And once the caloric state is detected what are the >bio-chemical changes that trigger fat storage or fat burning as a >direct result of the caloric state? Not the caloric state, (as I just said and have explained to you before), but the concentrations of the different molecules in the blood steram. > How exactly does this work and >where do the caloric state fit within the various metabolic processes? Molecules again. When there is an excess, it will be stored (law of mass action or when there is a higher concentration on one side of an equation, the reaction will move to the other side). Similarly for molecular deficits. Gee. This is what experienced dieters have been telling the so-called scientists for decades. It just doesn' t work that way. It's a psychology game and a game of body confusion. Calories in < calories out...sure but let's see you do it. > I happened to catch the surreal "reality" show The Biggest Loser last > night. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > TC >Gee. This is what experienced dieters have been telling the so-called >scientists for decades. And never listening to the reasons? >It just doesn' t work that way. It's a psychology >game and a game of body confusion. Well if that makes you feel better, but it's not borne out by scientific studies. >Calories in < calories out...sure but let's see you do it. So because you can't do it, it isn't true? What kind of logic is that? >> I happened to catch the surreal "reality" show The Biggest Loser last >> night. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >> >> TC > I happened to catch the surreal "reality" show The Biggest Loser last > night. Yes this is probably the most classic example of the absolute lunacy of the calorie theory. It just does not add up. They can pretend to apply thermodynamics and mathematical calculations to human food consumption and energy expenditure all day long. In the real world it just will not add up with consistency. There are too many variables. It is very funny how the simple reality of this example is just ignored by the fanatics of calorie religion. No amount of undisputable real world evidence will shatter their preconceived notions. >> I happened to catch the surreal "reality" show The Biggest Loser last >> night. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >undisputable real world evidence will shatter their preconceived >notions. Well please show one example of where the law of conservation of energy does not apply when the study is properly measured? Thought not. Many have, he is so invested in his anti science view,nutritional theology really, that he is blind to facts. His simple minded interpretation of what very little information he presents says something about his grasp on using logic and of understanding the basics of science. For months he was demanding we demonstrate that a negative cal. balance can lead to weight loss. When provided with specific examples he ignored them and continued his retorical tap dancing. If I recall correctly, it was at that time when presented with evidence he started his "all research is bunk because the commercial intrests manipulate it" rant to show why such evidence not supporting his view should be ignored. He never gave up his notion and has dusted it off with you in this thread. He demands "proof", ignores when it is given, and then declares none exists while providing no info to support his views. >>That is not uncommon. The first several days of a weight loss program >>frequently results in water loss which does not necessarily continue later on. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >several do that in the archives. He's been a perisitent pusher of his >low carb mantra, hasn't he! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.