Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: calorie vs calorie [Kenney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kenney wrote:
Do you know where I can get some of these critters, perferably the ones that like ice cream the best? : o)
If you could develop beer critters, you would be a billionaire

!!
Quote Reply
Re: calorie vs calorie [IronLady] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
IronLady wrote:
So I know some foods may have the same amount of calories but be different in terms of nutritional content (I.e. 100 cal of chips vs 100 cal of apple). But when it comes to weight loss or weight gain, it is all about creating a caloric deficit or surplus. But let's assume that a person who normally eats 2500 calories per day decided to lose weight and reduce daily caloric intake to 2000. Does it mean that in terms of weight loss, it doesn't matter if that person eats 2000 calories of only chips or 2000 calories of only apples? I am obviously leaving other health consideration aside. In other words, can a person really get fat if that person ate only apples but in excess of his caloric needs? I find it really hard to believe....
But that's essentially how it works and it is nothing but simple physics and the Law of conservation of energy. You can not make energy disappear nor can you make it appear out of nothing.

Whatever you eat consists of a mass that can be burned and essentially converted into carbon dioxide and water. So when you eat 2500 calories worth of cookies it generates the same amount of energy versus 2500 calories of veggies. If you burn more burn more, the additional energy has to come from somewhere because you can't make it out of nothing (see law of conservation of energy). So it must come from something on the body (fat, protein, or other components) and these get converted into water and CO2. Since those will be exhaled you'll essentially be losing weight.


_____________________
Don't forget to attack!
Quote Reply
Re: calorie vs calorie [Cobble] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Cobble wrote:
But that's essentially how it works and it is nothing but simple physics and the Law of conservation of energy. You can not make energy disappear nor can you make it appear out of nothing.

I believe this is among the top 5 ST cliches. Any diet discussion and it is just a matter of time before some sharp mind brings up the Law of Conservation of Energy and thermodynamic. Im sorry but: No Shit!

Problem is that we aren't talking theoretical physics here. Efficiency is a kinda big deal in all of this. Some foods are more digestible than others and give more net calories. Cooking increases calorie availability in food, loads of fibre inhibit absorption and protein has a large thermic effect in digestions. Some people exercise at a given workload and waste a lot more energy through heat production. Its thermodynamics but it isn't so simple.

Professional Athlete: http://jordancheyne.wordpress.com/ http://www.strava.com/athletes/145340

Coaching Services:http://www.peakformcoaching.com/

Quote Reply
Re: calorie vs calorie [Jordano] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jordano wrote:
Cobble wrote:
But that's essentially how it works and it is nothing but simple physics and the Law of conservation of energy. You can not make energy disappear nor can you make it appear out of nothing.

I believe this is among the top 5 ST cliches. Any diet discussion and it is just a matter of time before some sharp mind brings up the Law of Conservation of Energy and thermodynamic. Im sorry but: No Shit!

Problem is that we aren't talking theoretical physics here. Efficiency is a kinda big deal in all of this. Some foods are more digestible than others and give more net calories. Cooking increases calorie availability in food, loads of fibre inhibit absorption and protein has a large thermic effect in digestions. Some people exercise at a given workload and waste a lot more energy through heat production. Its thermodynamics but it isn't so simple.
Efficiency tells you how much of what you eat is used for energy, is stored or comes out as shit, sure. But you can'd go deny the laws of physics. It's IMPOSSIBLE to not lose weight if you take in less calories then you burn.


_____________________
Don't forget to attack!
Quote Reply
Re: calorie vs calorie [Cobble] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Agreed. I am saying it is impossible to know either side of your conservation equation exactly and therefore impossible to calculate the exact delta and weight loss/gain. 100kcals+ of inaccuracy can completely confound weight loss expectations.

Professional Athlete: http://jordancheyne.wordpress.com/ http://www.strava.com/athletes/145340

Coaching Services:http://www.peakformcoaching.com/

Quote Reply
Re: calorie vs calorie [Jordano] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Cobble wrote:
Jordano wrote:
Cobble wrote:
But that's essentially how it works and it is nothing but simple physics and the Law of conservation of energy. You can not make energy disappear nor can you make it appear out of nothing.


I believe this is among the top 5 ST cliches. Any diet discussion and it is just a matter of time before some sharp mind brings up the Law of Conservation of Energy and thermodynamic. Im sorry but: No Shit!

Problem is that we aren't talking theoretical physics here. Efficiency is a kinda big deal in all of this. Some foods are more digestible than others and give more net calories. Cooking increases calorie availability in food, loads of fibre inhibit absorption and protein has a large thermic effect in digestions. Some people exercise at a given workload and waste a lot more energy through heat production. Its thermodynamics but it isn't so simple.
Efficiency tells you how much of what you eat is used for energy, is stored or comes out as shit, sure. But you can'd go deny the laws of physics. It's IMPOSSIBLE to not lose weight if you take in less calories then you burn.
of course, that's why it's still a very good first-order model, but it just doesn't account for the other physiological effects
Jordano wrote:
Cobble wrote:
But that's essentially how it works and it is nothing but simple physics and the Law of conservation of energy. You can not make energy disappear nor can you make it appear out of nothing.


I believe this is among the top 5 ST cliches. Any diet discussion and it is just a matter of time before some sharp mind brings up the Law of Conservation of Energy and thermodynamic. Im sorry but: No Shit!

Problem is that we aren't talking theoretical physics here. Efficiency is a kinda big deal in all of this. Some foods are more digestible than others and give more net calories. Cooking increases calorie availability in food, loads of fibre inhibit absorption and protein has a large thermic effect in digestions. Some people exercise at a given workload and waste a lot more energy through heat production. Its thermodynamics but it isn't so simple.

+1 to this and the mentioning the consumption of fiber. You can eat the same kcal worth of food, one high in fiber and one low in fiber, but the one high in fiber will result in a more gradual uptake of nutrients and a less sharp insulin response. This does make a difference. Obviously not great enough to completely invalidate kcal in/kcal out, but enough to make kcal in/kcal out an approximation as opposed to an infallible rule. The human body, at the end of the day, is not a bomb calorimeter.
Quote Reply
Re: calorie vs calorie [IronLady] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No you can eat 6000 calories and be as thin as a pole. Watch durianrider on youtube that guy eats like 6000 calories of fruit everyday and he's an amazing cyclist and runner. I think as long as you avoid food that's been processed in any way it's generally hard to go wrong
Quote Reply
Re: calorie vs calorie [echappist] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
From the full text of your first link...

"21.5 ± 6.9%, 24.7 ± 6.2%, and 9.7 ± 6.6% for S12, S24, and R12, respectively."
To give that some context (rather then paste/copy large sections) that is the downregulation of the BMR after a semi-starvation diet of 12 weeks, 24 weeks and a controlled re-feed at 12 weeks.

So a 24 week semi-starvation diet yielded a drop in the BMR of some 25%.
Not insignificant, but not the end of the world many people make out, and certainly not enough to stall out any fat loss of someone who has more than 2 brains cells to rub together and smart enough to reduce their calories as their weight drops.
Quote Reply

Prev Next