Eating less does not result in weight loss

On 9 Oct 2003 16:57:57 -0700, (Ralph DuBose) wrote:

-"RLW" wrote in message
...
- "Mxsmanic" :
- RLW writes:
-
- Actually it is, insofar as it is burned. Some of the kinetic energy is
- organized to perform work; the rest is disorganized and is lost as heat.
-
- And other forms of energy.
-
- The human body is the same way.
-
- Right.
-
- I was saying that not all calories get converted to the same
- amount of fat.
-
- But they do. That's why there is only one kind of dietary calorie.
-
- I feel like I'm banging my head on a brick wall.
-
- You've yet to demonstrate to me that that isn't true.
-
- The burden of prove falls upon you. If you believe that all calories
- are not the same, you must explain your belief, because by default they
- are identical (which is why they all use the same
- I believe I already explained why in a previous post. Different
- macronutrients have different amounts of energy intrinsically within their
- chemical bonds. Both fat and carbohydrate can be metabolised completely to
- water and carbon dioxide, so I can see why you'd think calories from them
- would be identical. However, when carbohydrate is converted and stored in
- adipose tissue, more energy is lost than when fat is stored. Conversion of
- carbohydrate and protein to fat stores requires them to undergo an
- inefficient chemical conversion and therefore energy is lost. When fat is
- deposited into adipose tissue, there is no real chemical conversion
- necessary and hence there is little energy lost. That's why the body heats
- up during exercise: because the body's chemical reactions are inefficient.
- *Theoretically*, you could eat a slightly higher calorie diet if it had a
- greater percentage of its calories from protein and carbs, than one which
- had a greater percentage of its calories from fat, and maintain the same
- body fat composition. Like I said, though, the body is complex and I'll
- take good experimental evidence over theory any day.
-
- The body is indeed complex, but it is also very efficient with
-regard to energy matters. For example, better than 99% of available
-nutrients are extracted from food. Also, the chemical reactions you
-refer to are all driven along by enzymes which are highly evolved and
-very efficient, so the energy loss involved in these conversions is
-smaller than one would guess.
- Every healthy human has a extremely efficient metabolism, it does
-not make sense that fat people could have even more efficiency.

Actually it might make sense, because the difference between
metabolisms can be very small - smaller than normal inefficiency -
and

To gain say, 50 pounds in ten years would be an average excess
of .0136 pounds/day = .136*3500 = 47.6 excess calories stored per
day = an error of 2% of the nominal 2,4000 calories/day intake.

Besides:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
"The high correlation in metabolic efficiency within twin pairs
in response to therapeutic weight loss suggests a strong genetic
contribution."


-Because that is what is being claimed when people say that they stay
-fat despite less food and more exercise.

Apparently the NIH agrees with them to some extent.

-They are claiming that they have better efficiency than ordinary, fit,
-healthy people -- that their bodies can do more work of all types with
-the same amount of fuel than other folks.

There's no reason to think that everyone is exactly the same even
though everyone is fairly efficient and similar. Most people
are about the same height(etc), also. Besides, nothing that's
human is perfect, and everything that's human is variable.

- There is no experimental evidence for the existence of this sort of
-thing (and lots to the contrary) and solid theoretical grounds for
-doubting it could happen. There is not much room for improvement over
-normal.

It doesn't take much difference to gain weight (2% metabolic
difference = 50 pounds in ten years)

- Far too much money and thought has been devoted to the problem.
-Anyone serious about weight loss need only push exercise and diet
-restriction hard enough and they will get there. Just don't start with
-preconceived ideas about how hard one must push these things, it may
-be harder than the diet pimps are telling you.
-

FWIW, I have no personal bone to pick here since I'm not the
least bit fat and don't worry about it - but I *do* think my
metabolism is different than most peoples'. If I can't seem
to get fat, I don't see why it's unlike that other people
have a disparity, even a small one, between their physical
drive to eat and their metabolisms.

-
-
-
- I tried to find exact amounts of energy lost for these reactions in my
- undergrad biochem textbook, but they didn't give any. It's been a while
- since I studied biochemistry to be honest. I can't be arsed to go down to
- the library for a usenet debate when I have a lot better things to do with
- my time.
-
- If you can cite some solid evidence to show that 100 calories of fat and 100
- calories of protein or carbohydrate are stored as the same amount of adipose
- tissue in the human body, I'd be interested in seeing it and would recant my
- position immediately.
-
- In the meantime, I shall say that I think the most effective way to lose
- weight is to cut caloric intake. From my own experiences, exercise by
- itself while maintaining a contant caloric intake did practically nothing to
- change my weight. I did that for about six months (aerobic exercise for
- 30-60 minutes, at least six days per week) and lost less than 5kg.
-
- Yeah, I know what they are. I've got a BSc in Chemistry.
-
- Then why do you base your position on biology?
-
- I was talking about biochemical processes within the body, which are based
- on chemistry.
-
- However, I also studied biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and a few other
- subjects before finally settling on organic chemistry as my major.
-
- You may have the last word if you wish. I'm not going to waste any more
- time on this thread.
-
- Rowena.

And why do they like Atkins, Scarsdale, Grapefruit, and Richard
Simmons better? Why do they follow programs that require equal
or greater effort and sacrifice, if yours works for all? How is it
that the multi-billion-dollar weight loss industry is able to convince
people that the simple plan that everyone knows about doesn't work
for everyone?

It's possibly because we're at odds over the definition of "works".

When we have said that it "works," we have meant that, "if the diet
is stuck to, and the exercise performed, the weight loss will occur."
However, the human race being such as it is, this isn't all there is
to a diet. For example, if two different diets, with the same calorie-
restriction/calorie-burn potential are presented, and one of them is
subjectively perceived as "easier to stick with," this diet will be
superior by someone else's standard.

Ketogenic diets (e.g., "Atkins," just one example) "work" for some
folks because ketones can be a bit of an appetite suppressant, for
example.

For others, certain types of food are unpalatable.

For many, simply keeping up an exercise program is too much for them.

They'd rather have a pill.

That's their issue, and their choice.

But the fact remains: restrict calories and exercise, and weight loss
will occur. This *always* works.

C//

Eating less does NOT inevitably result in gaining less weight.

No, it doesn't. But eating less and engaging in a regular exercise
program will inevitably cause weight loss.

C//

Mr. F. Le Mur writes:

Actually it might make sense, because the difference between
metabolisms can be very small - smaller than normal inefficiency -
and

To gain say, 50 pounds in ten years would be an average excess
of .0136 pounds/day = .136*3500 = 47.6 excess calories stored per
day = an error of 2% of the nominal 2,4000 calories/day intake.

The variation between individuals in voluntary food consumption
completely obliterates a 48 kcal per day difference, so it's not that.

There's no reason to think that everyone is exactly the same even
though everyone is fairly efficient and similar.

The same formulas and numbers work for everyone. It works for blood
pressure, temperature, and a zillion other lab values, including BMR and
extrapolations of BMR to REE and exercise energy expenditures.

It doesn't take much difference to gain weight (2% metabolic
difference = 50 pounds in ten years)

Most people do not gain or lose 50 pounds in ten years.

If I can't seem to get fat, I don't see why it's unlike
that other people have a disparity, even a small one,
between their physical drive to eat and their metabolisms.

It's not a physical drive, it's a psychological drive.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Intense weight lifting actually causes *more* fat loss over time,
because of the increased metabolic load required by both the
addition of new muscle tissue, as well as its maintenance.

It also dramatically increases the risk of serious incidents resulting
from acute, severe hypertensive episodes.

I looked for a source of epidemiology on this and could find none.
While blood pressure is well-understood to go up during exercise,
even in some exercises to very high levels, this is not considered
a "acute hypertensive episode" by the medical community. An "acute
hypertensive episode" is one in which one's blood pressure is elevated
to a life-threatening level over a significant length of time, such
that immediate medical intervention is required, such as the use of
anti-hypertensive medication such as lasix.

If you have a source for a statistic that lays a meaningful claim
on the subject, I'd like to see it.

C//

It is an illustration of the fact that
the claims of simple linear relationships do not apply here.

No, actually, it is *not* such an example. All the example shows
is that the body has multiple energy reserves.

C//

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 23:43:55 +1000, "RLW" wrote:

-
-"Mxsmanic" :
- RLW writes:
-
- Actually it is, insofar as it is burned. Some of the kinetic energy is
- organized to perform work; the rest is disorganized and is lost as heat.
-
-And other forms of energy.
-
- The human body is the same way.
-
-Right.
-
- I was saying that not all calories get converted to the same
- amount of fat.
-
- But they do. That's why there is only one kind of dietary calorie.
-
-I feel like I'm banging my head on a brick wall.
-
- You've yet to demonstrate to me that that isn't true.
-
- The burden of prove falls upon you. If you believe that all calories
- are not the same, you must explain your belief, because by default they
- are identical (which is why they all use the same unit).
-
-I believe I already explained why in a previous post. Different
-macronutrients have different amounts of energy intrinsically within their
-chemical bonds. Both fat and carbohydrate can be metabolised completely to
-water and carbon dioxide, so I can see why you'd think calories from them
-would be identical. However, when carbohydrate is converted and stored in
-adipose tissue, more energy is lost than when fat is stored. Conversion of

That's what I thought - but is that extra energy cost taken into
account in the definition of a food's caloric value? (i.e, the
caloric value is defined as what you get after you use the energy
to digest and convert it).

-carbohydrate and protein to fat stores requires them to undergo an
-inefficient chemical conversion and therefore energy is lost. When fat is
-deposited into adipose tissue, there is no real chemical conversion
-necessary and hence there is little energy lost. That's why the body heats
-up during exercise: because the body's chemical reactions are inefficient.
-*Theoretically*, you could eat a slightly higher calorie diet if it had a
-greater percentage of its calories from protein and carbs, than one which
-had a greater percentage of its calories from fat, and maintain the same
-body fat composition. Like I said, though, the body is complex and I'll
-take good experimental evidence over theory any day.
-
-I tried to find exact amounts of energy lost for these reactions in my
-undergrad biochem textbook, but they didn't give any. It's been a while
-since I studied biochemistry to be honest. I can't be arsed to go down to
-the library for a usenet debate when I have a lot better things to do with
-my time.
-
-If you can cite some solid evidence to show that 100 calories of fat and 100
-calories of protein or carbohydrate are stored as the same amount of adipose
-tissue in the human body, I'd be interested in seeing it and would recant my
-position immediately.
-
-In the meantime, I shall say that I think the most effective way to lose
-weight is to cut caloric intake. From my own experiences, exercise by
-itself while maintaining a contant caloric intake did practically nothing to
-change my weight. I did that for about six months (aerobic exercise for
-30-60 minutes, at least six days per week) and lost less than 5kg.
-
- Yeah, I know what they are. I've got a BSc in Chemistry.
-
- Then why do you base your position on biology?
-
-I was talking about biochemical processes within the body, which are based
-on chemistry.
-
-However, I also studied biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and a few other
-subjects before finally settling on organic chemistry as my major.
-
-You may have the last word if you wish. I'm not going to waste any more
-time on this thread.
-
-Rowena.
-
-

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 21:01:46 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

-
- I tried to find exact amounts of energy lost for these reactions in my
- undergrad biochem textbook, but they didn't give any.
-
-I recall about 2 kcal per gram for fat, total. I don't recall the
-figures for other macronutrients. The only figures I keep in mind are
-the net figures, after adjustment for conversion overhead.

Apparrently it's not as simple as "a calorie is a calorie,"
because the digestive energy expenditure changes depending
on what you eat - note the last sentence of the 1st paragraph
below.

http://www.tcb.ac.il/Extra/type1file/carbo.pdf
FAO/WHO expert consultation on carbohydrates in human nutrition
....
Effects of diet composition during positive energy balance

It is during periods of positive energy balance that differences
in carbohydrate and fat have the greatest impact upon body weight
regulation. This is because of differences in the efficiency of
metabolic pathways involved in disposing of excess carbohydrate
vs fat. One study (107) demonstrated that while the majority of
excess energy is stored regardless of its composition, a greater
proportion of excess energy is stored when the excess is from fat
as compared to when the excess is from carbohydrate. This is a
clear example of a situation where fat intake leads to more body
energy storage than the same amount of energy from carbohydrate.

Total energy expenditure increases more with carbohydrate over-
feeding than with fat overfeeding. This is because carbohydrate
oxidation increases to a greater extent than fat oxidation
decreases during carbohydrate overfeeding. The difference between
carbohydrate and fat in the proportion of excess energy stored
is greatest during the first week of overfeeding. This suggests
that the more sustained the overfeeding, the less the difference
between carbohydrate and fat overfeeding. If obesity develops
due to brief, periodic episodes of overeating, differences between
fat and carbohydrate are likely to be more important than if
obesity develops from sustained positive energy balance.
....

Courageous writes:

I looked for a source of epidemiology on this and could find none.
While blood pressure is well-understood to go up during exercise,
even in some exercises to very high levels, this is not considered
a "acute hypertensive episode" by the medical community. An "acute
hypertensive episode" is one in which one's blood pressure is elevated
to a life-threatening level over a significant length of time, such
that immediate medical intervention is required, such as the use of
anti-hypertensive medication such as lasix.

I've seen cites of BPs of 400/300 for brief periods after heavy lifts.
While this may not qualify as a hypertensive episode, for someone
already close to a CVA, it may be more than sufficient to push him or
her over the edge. I also recall seeing data showing that intracranial
hemorrhages were more common in weightlifters and powerlifters, but I
don't have specific data.

The abrupt rise in BP occurs after the lift and is a physiological
consequence of the extreme Valsalva maneuver that most lifters perform
during the lift.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

In article ,
"Michael Snyder" wrote:

SuperSpark ® wrote in message ...
In article ,
Michael Snyder wrote:

SuperSpark ® wrote:
In article ,
"Michael Snyder" wrote:


Mxsmanic wrote in message ...

Mr. F. Le Mur writes:


True, but I think the idea is if you don't eat anough fat, then
you still have cravings (for fat) and eat more calories-worth
of stuff with less fat.

It's funny how people elsewhere in the world manage to remain thin
without having to worry about how much fat or carbs they are eating,
isn't it?

Yes it is. As it is also funny that a high-carb/low fat/low protein diet
works for SOME people, while a high-protein/low carb diet works for
SOME people, while eating only pineapple and tree frogs works for
SOME people... yet there is not a single diet or practice that works
for ALL people, including eating less and exercising more.


Eating less and excercising more works 100% of the time, for all people,
if applied correctly. Simple, basic human physiology.

So you say. And yet, the evidence says otherwise. The lesson being,
I think: "if you want weight-loss advice, do not ask a mathematician".



Please provide proof that anyone, living or dead, American or otherwise,
followed a calorie restrictive diet and did not lose weight.

Well, you won't regard it as "proof", but I am such a person.

And you claim to be a scientist...tsk tsk.


At the age of 44 I reduced my dietary intake by more than half,
began going to the gym 3 times a week (following a program
outlined for me by a professional fitness trainer), and followed
this regimen for more than 6 months. During the first 6 weeks
I lost 10 pounds, and after that nothing. For the subsequent
4.5 months my weight did not budge, even though I had plenty
of spare body fat to lose.


Ahh. The truth comes out.

Well, congratulations on the initial weight loss. And I hope you can
see, as clearly as we all can, that by relating your own experience
you've proven the point of contention: You ate less, you excercised, you
lost weight.

Is there anything else you'd like to add?