6 ms·

The big mistake begins here: "Simple physics requires that to lose weight, we must burn more calories than we ingest" THAT fallacy is how the author leads the

The big mistake begins here: "Simple physics requires that to lose weight, we must burn more calories than we ingest" THAT fallacy is how the author leads the reader in to HIS strawman argument, that somehow Taubes is unaware of, or disregards, the laws of thermodynamics. 1) Ingesting calories is not relevant, digesting is. 2) We don't "burn" any calories whatsoever. We use various components of food as raw materials for various biological processes. One conceptual example: when you ingest some sort of protein, your body might break it down in to amino acid chains and then repair a muscle fiber using those raw materials. Talking about the human body as if it is a closed system that burns food is just silly. We're accidentally taking our metaphors as literal. Yes, if we literally burned all the calories we ingest, the thermodynamics argument would be correct. However, that just a metaphor, don't mistake the map for the territory.

anthonyb 14y ago
He's also completely overlooking the overfeeding studies that Taubes references in his books. Eating 10000 calories of cheese or pork chops is a lot harder than with ice cream.
- legitsource 14y ago
  It's easy to eat a stick of butter and a cup of sugar in the form of frosting. It's really hard to eat the equivalent calories in butter alone.
joelrunyon 14y ago
There's also the distinction between "losing weight" and "losing fat." The calorie in vs. calorie out method is great if you're simply focused on losing weight, but if you're interested in losing fat, changing your body composition, or gaining muscle definition, you're going to have to dig a little deeper than just calorie counting – you'll need to look at the quality & types of foods you're eating.
sxp 14y ago
The calories in/calories out model does work as long as you properly count the calories going in. The number shouldn't be what's on the nutrition label since that assumes an ideal digestive system that can fully extract all the energy from the food that a person eats. This number doesn't include factors such as the health of the person. If the person has digestive problems such an a malfunctioning intestine and can't digest and absorb the energy from the food, then amount of calories extracted from the food will be lower than what's on the label. If the person has metabolic problems such diabetes or certain other hormonal imbalances, then the energy will be extracted from the food, but it will be stored as fat rather than being used as useful energy. The person will feel tired even though they are consuming enough calories. Reducing food intake or increasing energy consumption will help a person lose weight if all other factors stay the same. However, as a person consumes less food, they might end up feeling tired and crappy due to the body trying to compensate. Alternatively, changing a person's hormonal balance (e.g. by consuming low glycemic load foods to reduce insulin spikes and allow better utilization of energy in the food) will also cause a person to lose weight. This is the basis of the good calories/bad calories model of dieting, the Atkin's diet, and Tim Ferriss's Slow Carb Diet.
jrs235 14y ago
Was waiting to see someone to make the distinction between ingestion and digestion. Most people would consider me skinny... and I always eating and often things that most would consider fattening or unhealthy. People will remark, "How do you stay so skinny?! You're so lucky!"... Except, I would be willing to bet that I have a digestive disorder. Which one? I don't know and I don't care to find out. For the most part it hasn't/doesn't adversely affect me. It seems that much of what I eat doesn't get digested and/or absorbed by my body. tl;dr; There's a difference between ingestion and digestion. I ingest a lot but probably don't digest much of it. Update: I have strong reasons to believe I have a digestive disorder since they run in my family. Also, I wonder how many calories I burn from being a "leg shaker".
- Mz 14y ago
  I am someone who was diagnosed late in life with a condition which includes but is not limited to a digestive disorder. I have trouble with the idea that you can have a digestive disorder and see no real problems from it. From what I gather, they typically have serious problems associated with them. So it makes me wonder if you have some seemingly unrelated health issues? You can email me if you would rather not say publically.
- robbiep 14y ago
  going to take this on a slightly weird angle here: Does your faeces float or have oily discharge around it? Malabsorption of fat is essentially defined by the clinical features that can be easily determined. Do you get bloated, have excessive flatulus, or discharge? All signs of malabsorption as well. It is relatively unlikely that people have digestive problems long term without developing consequences as there are pretty much always side-effects from having nutrients running around a 20m track inside your body loaded with bacteria but not being taken into your body. What you don't absorb, your bacteria will run riot on, with subsequent symptoms; And if you have a fat malabsorption problem you will rapidly develop symptoms (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olestra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olestra or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipase_inhibitors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipase_inhibitors for induced fat malabsorption)
robbiep 14y ago
* > 2) We don't "burn" any calories whatsoever.* - It seems like you would know this but we very literally do "Burn" all of our calories that go into heat production - The Mitochondrial pathways very literally burn/react carbon with oxygen to produce H2O and CO2 incredibly efficiently. (67% of usable energy from this reaction is captured and stored in ATP, the remainder is given off as heat) This process is significantly more efficient than any 'burning' we do in industry for example, but is exactly the same process as what is happening in a coal power plant, just on a much more efficient scale. Even if we take proteins -> amino acids -> back to proteins, we are using energy in the form of ATP (the cellular battery) that was the product of the burning in the mitochondrial power plants, in order to have allowed the amino acids to be ready to be formed into new protein. So we literally DO burn ALL of our calories (You could argue that glycolysis isn't burning, but this process is very inefficient and is responsible for <<<0.1% of ATP production) This is undeniable scientific fact.
- funkwyrm 14y ago
  Cool explanation. I didn't conceptually get that the mitochondrial energy process is the same as a coal power plant. But if everything gets burned, how do I build new cell walls and stuff? Where does the actual matter come from? Some of the matter must be used to create matter directly, rather than as simple an energy source. Or if all the matter in my body is grown/created entirely from energy and cell division (can't be true of essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and fatty acids, by definition) isn't growing and repairing my body going to be a huge factor in energy consumption?
  - Mz 14y ago
    Lay(wo)man's understanding: You burn the oxygen, one molecule at a time. But there is more in your food than oxygen.
    - robbiep 14y ago
      I think you mean carbon instead of oxygen, and it's 2 at a time, not one at a time. Your analogy is roughly correct but in the base, reductionist biochemistry of which the body functions, you have fats (chains of carbons with hydrogens on them - directly burned this way), carbs (basic form C6H12O6) which are also directly burnt this way with water coming off, and protein, which has occasional nitrogen atoms and some sulphur atoms. Proteins can also carry metals - so bits of iron or copper or other things we need to make some proteins function correctly are 'carried' into the intestinal system this way. The only other thing we really need is lots and lots of Phosphate, which we take in largely through consumption of DNA in things we eat If proteins are to be burnt in mitochondria the nitrogens are converted to urea and excreted. Vitamins are just arrangements of carbon atoms with the occasional nitrogen and oxygen and hydrogen around. Some have a single copper or zinc atom there too. We really don't use any more than this, our body literally does just run on carbon. To complete your statement, although there is more in food than just carbon, there really isn't much that we are interested in (biochemically speaking) than the carbon, although the body has uses for some of the myriad forms that are created in other plants and animals that we can't synthesise ourselves.

anthonyb 14y ago

He's also completely overlooking the overfeeding studies that Taubes references in his books. Eating 10000 calories of cheese or pork chops is a lot harder than with ice cream.

legitsource 14y ago
It's easy to eat a stick of butter and a cup of sugar in the form of frosting. It's really hard to eat the equivalent calories in butter alone.

joelrunyon 14y ago

There's also the distinction between "losing weight" and "losing fat." The calorie in vs. calorie out method is great if you're simply focused on losing weight, but if you're interested in losing fat, changing your body composition, or gaining muscle definition, you're going to have to dig a little deeper than just calorie counting – you'll need to look at the quality & types of foods you're eating.

sxp 14y ago

The calories in/calories out model does work as long as you properly count the calories going in. The number shouldn't be what's on the nutrition label since that assumes an ideal digestive system that can fully extract all the energy from the food that a person eats. This number doesn't include factors such as the health of the person. If the person has digestive problems such an a malfunctioning intestine and can't digest and absorb the energy from the food, then amount of calories extracted from the food will be lower than what's on the label. If the person has metabolic problems such diabetes or certain other hormonal imbalances, then the energy will be extracted from the food, but it will be stored as fat rather than being used as useful energy. The person will feel tired even though they are consuming enough calories. Reducing food intake or increasing energy consumption will help a person lose weight if all other factors stay the same. However, as a person consumes less food, they might end up feeling tired and crappy due to the body trying to compensate. Alternatively, changing a person's hormonal balance (e.g. by consuming low glycemic load foods to reduce insulin spikes and allow better utilization of energy in the food) will also cause a person to lose weight. This is the basis of the good calories/bad calories model of dieting, the Atkin's diet, and Tim Ferriss's Slow Carb Diet.

jrs235 14y ago

Was waiting to see someone to make the distinction between ingestion and digestion. Most people would consider me skinny... and I always eating and often things that most would consider fattening or unhealthy. People will remark, "How do you stay so skinny?! You're so lucky!"... Except, I would be willing to bet that I have a digestive disorder. Which one? I don't know and I don't care to find out. For the most part it hasn't/doesn't adversely affect me. It seems that much of what I eat doesn't get digested and/or absorbed by my body. tl;dr; There's a difference between ingestion and digestion. I ingest a lot but probably don't digest much of it. Update: I have strong reasons to believe I have a digestive disorder since they run in my family. Also, I wonder how many calories I burn from being a "leg shaker".

Mz 14y ago
I am someone who was diagnosed late in life with a condition which includes but is not limited to a digestive disorder. I have trouble with the idea that you can have a digestive disorder and see no real problems from it. From what I gather, they typically have serious problems associated with them. So it makes me wonder if you have some seemingly unrelated health issues? You can email me if you would rather not say publically.
robbiep 14y ago
going to take this on a slightly weird angle here: Does your faeces float or have oily discharge around it? Malabsorption of fat is essentially defined by the clinical features that can be easily determined. Do you get bloated, have excessive flatulus, or discharge? All signs of malabsorption as well. It is relatively unlikely that people have digestive problems long term without developing consequences as there are pretty much always side-effects from having nutrients running around a 20m track inside your body loaded with bacteria but not being taken into your body. What you don't absorb, your bacteria will run riot on, with subsequent symptoms; And if you have a fat malabsorption problem you will rapidly develop symptoms (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olestra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olestra or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipase_inhibitors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipase_inhibitors for induced fat malabsorption)

robbiep 14y ago

* > 2) We don't "burn" any calories whatsoever.* - It seems like you would know this but we very literally do "Burn" all of our calories that go into heat production - The Mitochondrial pathways very literally burn/react carbon with oxygen to produce H2O and CO2 incredibly efficiently. (67% of usable energy from this reaction is captured and stored in ATP, the remainder is given off as heat) This process is significantly more efficient than any 'burning' we do in industry for example, but is exactly the same process as what is happening in a coal power plant, just on a much more efficient scale. Even if we take proteins -> amino acids -> back to proteins, we are using energy in the form of ATP (the cellular battery) that was the product of the burning in the mitochondrial power plants, in order to have allowed the amino acids to be ready to be formed into new protein. So we literally DO burn ALL of our calories (You could argue that glycolysis isn't burning, but this process is very inefficient and is responsible for <<<0.1% of ATP production) This is undeniable scientific fact.

funkwyrm 14y ago
Cool explanation. I didn't conceptually get that the mitochondrial energy process is the same as a coal power plant. But if everything gets burned, how do I build new cell walls and stuff? Where does the actual matter come from? Some of the matter must be used to create matter directly, rather than as simple an energy source. Or if all the matter in my body is grown/created entirely from energy and cell division (can't be true of essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and fatty acids, by definition) isn't growing and repairing my body going to be a huge factor in energy consumption?
- Mz 14y ago
  Lay(wo)man's understanding: You burn the oxygen, one molecule at a time. But there is more in your food than oxygen.
  - robbiep 14y ago
    I think you mean carbon instead of oxygen, and it's 2 at a time, not one at a time. Your analogy is roughly correct but in the base, reductionist biochemistry of which the body functions, you have fats (chains of carbons with hydrogens on them - directly burned this way), carbs (basic form C6H12O6) which are also directly burnt this way with water coming off, and protein, which has occasional nitrogen atoms and some sulphur atoms. Proteins can also carry metals - so bits of iron or copper or other things we need to make some proteins function correctly are 'carried' into the intestinal system this way. The only other thing we really need is lots and lots of Phosphate, which we take in largely through consumption of DNA in things we eat If proteins are to be burnt in mitochondria the nitrogens are converted to urea and excreted. Vitamins are just arrangements of carbon atoms with the occasional nitrogen and oxygen and hydrogen around. Some have a single copper or zinc atom there too. We really don't use any more than this, our body literally does just run on carbon. To complete your statement, although there is more in food than just carbon, there really isn't much that we are interested in (biochemically speaking) than the carbon, although the body has uses for some of the myriad forms that are created in other plants and animals that we can't synthesise ourselves.