Author Topic: Death of the calorie - The Economist article  (Read 1012 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline superdave

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6262
Re: Death of the calorie - The Economist article
« Reply #15 on: May 13, 2019, 10:29:58 AM »
it seems like the problem is not calories in versus out but that calories themselves are functions of many variables, including time.
I disavow anyone in the movement involved in any illegal,unethical, sexist, or racist behavior. However, I don't have the energy or time to investigate each person and case, and a lack of individual disavowals for each incident should not be construed as condoning such behavior.

Online jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2731
    • jt512
Re: Death of the calorie - The Economist article
« Reply #16 on: May 13, 2019, 10:35:19 AM »
it seems like the problem is not calories in versus out but that calories themselves are functions of many variables, including time.


A calorie is a unit of energy.  How can it be a function of time?
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline superdave

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6262
Re: Death of the calorie - The Economist article
« Reply #17 on: May 13, 2019, 10:46:10 AM »
it seems like the problem is not calories in versus out but that calories themselves are functions of many variables, including time.


A calorie is a unit of energy.  How can it be a function of time?
the body cannot process calories instantaneously .  it takes some time for the processes to occur.

this is my engineering training kicking.
its a rate of accumulation function

R_a =  R_in - R_out

easy to solve to when R_in and R_out are constants, tricky to impossible if they are not.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2019, 02:45:00 PM by superdave »
I disavow anyone in the movement involved in any illegal,unethical, sexist, or racist behavior. However, I don't have the energy or time to investigate each person and case, and a lack of individual disavowals for each incident should not be construed as condoning such behavior.

Online daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9410
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Death of the calorie - The Economist article
« Reply #18 on: May 13, 2019, 11:13:35 AM »
The thing with calorie counting is that it works, and it works even if the facts of these articles about how a calorie is not a calorie are accurate. It works because your objective to weightless is not to have a precise count of calories but rather a significant reduction of calories intake from your calorie burnt. So, you'll want to reduce about 33% to 25% of your caloric intake, or 50% under supervision. If, you are underestimating the calorie, You will still lose weight, because you are still quite far from your 2000 or 2500 calorie maximum. And said calorie maximum is still an average based on your daily activities.

Regardless of whether the initial assumptions in the early 1900 about the calories are wrong or not. Thinking that Calories are irrelevant or useless in weight loss is absurd.

The above needs to be repeated. It does not matter if the published figures are correct or not. The calorie is a tool you can use to increase, decrease, or hold constant your food-energy consumption. It does not matter if your own personal basal metabolic rate is higher or lower or the same as the published expected number for your weight and gender.

You can count your calories before making any changes, and you know whether you are gaining or losing weight or holding steady, and you have your own person numbers. Then you can adjust up or down to gain or lose weight. Some people can go on a diet and lose weight without counting calories. Bravo for them. They don't need to use this tool. For others, the calorie is a useful tool to control how much they eat.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline Guillermo

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3231
  • (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Re: Death of the calorie - The Economist article
« Reply #19 on: May 13, 2019, 11:15:28 AM »
The thing with calorie counting is that it works, and it works even if the facts of these articles about how a calorie is not a calorie are accurate. It works because your objective to weightless is not to have a precise count of calories but rather a significant reduction of calories intake from your calorie burnt. So, you'll want to reduce about 33% to 25% of your caloric intake, or 50% under supervision. If, you are underestimating the calorie, You will still lose weight, because you are still quite far from your 2000 or 2500 calorie maximum. And said calorie maximum is still an average based on your daily activities.

Regardless of whether the initial assumptions in the early 1900 about the calories are wrong or not. Thinking that Calories are irrelevant or useless in weight loss is absurd.

The above needs to be repeated. It does not matter if the published figures are correct or not. The calorie is a tool you can use to increase, decrease, or hold constant your food-energy consumption. It does not matter if your own personal basal metabolic rate is higher or lower or the same as the published expected number for your weight and gender.

You can count your calories before making any changes, and you know whether you are gaining or losing weight or holding steady, and you have your own person numbers. Then you can adjust up or down to gain or lose weight. Some people can go on a diet and lose weight without counting calories. Bravo for them. They don't need to use this tool. For others, the calorie is a useful tool to control how much they eat.
this
"There will one day be a member named "No Lynch" and he won't be able to play mafia.  :P"

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12314
Re: Death of the calorie - The Economist article
« Reply #20 on: May 13, 2019, 12:02:49 PM »
The thing with calorie counting is that it works, and it works even if the facts of these articles about how a calorie is not a calorie are accurate. It works because your objective to weightless is not to have a precise count of calories but rather a significant reduction of calories intake from your calorie burnt. So, you'll want to reduce about 33% to 25% of your caloric intake, or 50% under supervision. If, you are underestimating the calorie, You will still lose weight, because you are still quite far from your 2000 or 2500 calorie maximum. And said calorie maximum is still an average based on your daily activities.

Regardless of whether the initial assumptions in the early 1900 about the calories are wrong or not. Thinking that Calories are irrelevant or useless in weight loss is absurd.
The thinking is that in terms of given overweight and obese people diet advice for losing excess fat, focusing on calories is not as effective or successful as focusing on carbohydrates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5035
Re: Death of the calorie - The Economist article
« Reply #21 on: May 13, 2019, 01:55:43 PM »
Time: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26693746

The effect of cooling starch changes the caloric effect on the animal that eats it, fewer calories able to be used by the consumer, more for the intestinal biota.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Online jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2731
    • jt512
Re: Death of the calorie - The Economist article
« Reply #22 on: May 13, 2019, 03:00:23 PM »
it seems like the problem is not calories in versus out but that calories themselves are functions of many variables, including time.


A calorie is a unit of energy.  How can it be a function of time?
the body cannot process calories instantaneously .  it takes some time for the processes to occur.

this is my engineering training kicking.
its a rate of accumulation function

R_a =  R_in - R_out

easy to solve to when R_in and R_out are constants, tricky to impossible if they are not.

Calories in > calories out -> weight gain
Calories in < calories out -> weight loss

Easy peasy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Online daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9410
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Death of the calorie - The Economist article
« Reply #23 on: May 13, 2019, 05:00:04 PM »
The thinking is that in terms of given overweight and obese people diet advice for losing excess fat, focusing on calories is not as effective or successful as focusing on carbohydrates.

No. What people need to focus on is a lifestyle change. Counting calories is a useful tool for most people as they assess how much they are eating. But the fundamental thing they need to focus on is changing the lifestyle patterns that lead them to consume more food energy than they burn. If you consume more than you expend you will gain weight. If you expend more than you consume you will lose weight.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12314
Re: Death of the calorie - The Economist article
« Reply #24 on: May 13, 2019, 08:05:34 PM »
The thinking is that in terms of given overweight and obese people diet advice for losing excess fat, focusing on calories is not as effective or successful as focusing on carbohydrates.

No. What people need to focus on is a lifestyle change. Counting calories is a useful tool for most people as they assess how much they are eating. But the fundamental thing they need to focus on is changing the lifestyle patterns that lead them to consume more food energy than they burn. If you consume more than you expend you will gain weight. If you expend more than you consume you will lose weight.

You are blaming the victims.

What leads people to consume more calories in food than they burn is the nature of the food they consume.

Fast simple carbs cause the body to store more fat and at the same time decrease satiety and increase appetite.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9410
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Death of the calorie - The Economist article
« Reply #25 on: May 14, 2019, 11:44:11 AM »
The thinking is that in terms of given overweight and obese people diet advice for losing excess fat, focusing on calories is not as effective or successful as focusing on carbohydrates.

No. What people need to focus on is a lifestyle change. Counting calories is a useful tool for most people as they assess how much they are eating. But the fundamental thing they need to focus on is changing the lifestyle patterns that lead them to consume more food energy than they burn. If you consume more than you expend you will gain weight. If you expend more than you consume you will lose weight.

You are blaming the victims.

What leads people to consume more calories in food than they burn is the nature of the food they consume.

Fast simple carbs cause the body to store more fat and at the same time decrease satiety and increase appetite.

No. I'm not blaming the victims. I'm re-stating the Law of Conservation of Energy. It's been demonstrated so many times as to be established science, that you can lose weight on any macronutrient mix, and that it's all a matter of motivation. You can lose weight eating nothing but Big Macs. You can lose weight eating nothing but veggies. Provided that you get the minimum necessary amounts of each nutrient, you can cut any of them to the bare minimum and get the bulk of your calories from any one of the others, and you can lose weight if you are sufficiently motivated.

You have fallen into the trap of thinking that what works for you is the best for everyone. It's really a wonderful thing (no sarcasm intended) that you have found a system that works for you. But you are mistaken in thinking that your system would be the best for me.

When LCHF works, it does so because it enables the individual to control their total consumption. And when LFHC works, it does so for the same reason. And the system that works for one person will not necessarily work for another. And since motivation is not related to macronutrient ratios, a balanced diet will work for yet others. And some people have medical or other issues and they cannot lose weight. And some people choose not to lose weight because they are happy the way they are or for other personal reasons.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2335
Re: Death of the calorie - The Economist article
« Reply #26 on: May 14, 2019, 01:12:26 PM »
The thinking is that in terms of given overweight and obese people diet advice for losing excess fat, focusing on calories is not as effective or successful as focusing on carbohydrates.

No. What people need to focus on is a lifestyle change. Counting calories is a useful tool for most people as they assess how much they are eating. But the fundamental thing they need to focus on is changing the lifestyle patterns that lead them to consume more food energy than they burn. If you consume more than you expend you will gain weight. If you expend more than you consume you will lose weight.

You are blaming the victims.

What leads people to consume more calories in food than they burn is the nature of the food they consume.

Fast simple carbs cause the body to store more fat and at the same time decrease satiety and increase appetite.

No. I'm not blaming the victims. I'm re-stating the Law of Conservation of Energy. It's been demonstrated so many times as to be established science, that you can lose weight on any macronutrient mix, and that it's all a matter of motivation. You can lose weight eating nothing but Big Macs. You can lose weight eating nothing but veggies. Provided that you get the minimum necessary amounts of each nutrient, you can cut any of them to the bare minimum and get the bulk of your calories from any one of the others, and you can lose weight if you are sufficiently motivated.

You have fallen into the trap of thinking that what works for you is the best for everyone. It's really a wonderful thing (no sarcasm intended) that you have found a system that works for you. But you are mistaken in thinking that your system would be the best for me.

When LCHF works, it does so because it enables the individual to control their total consumption. And when LFHC works, it does so for the same reason. And the system that works for one person will not necessarily work for another. And since motivation is not related to macronutrient ratios, a balanced diet will work for yet others. And some people have medical or other issues and they cannot lose weight. And some people choose not to lose weight because they are happy the way they are or for other personal reasons.

Absolutely agree with you in every point you’re making.  CarbShark is just relying on his own personal anecdote to justify his HFLC ketogenic diet as being ‘best,’ whereas it’s just an acceptable diet, provided it works.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12314
Re: Death of the calorie - The Economist article
« Reply #27 on: May 14, 2019, 01:38:15 PM »
The thinking is that in terms of given overweight and obese people diet advice for losing excess fat, focusing on calories is not as effective or successful as focusing on carbohydrates.

No. What people need to focus on is a lifestyle change. Counting calories is a useful tool for most people as they assess how much they are eating. But the fundamental thing they need to focus on is changing the lifestyle patterns that lead them to consume more food energy than they burn. If you consume more than you expend you will gain weight. If you expend more than you consume you will lose weight.

You are blaming the victims.

What leads people to consume more calories in food than they burn is the nature of the food they consume.

Fast simple carbs cause the body to store more fat and at the same time decrease satiety and increase appetite.

No. I'm not blaming the victims. I'm re-stating the Law of Conservation of Energy. It's been demonstrated so many times as to be established science, that you can lose weight on any macronutrient mix, and that it's all a matter of motivation. You can lose weight eating nothing but Big Macs. You can lose weight eating nothing but veggies. Provided that you get the minimum necessary amounts of each nutrient, you can cut any of them to the bare minimum and get the bulk of your calories from any one of the others, and you can lose weight if you are sufficiently motivated.

You have fallen into the trap of thinking that what works for you is the best for everyone. It's really a wonderful thing (no sarcasm intended) that you have found a system that works for you. But you are mistaken in thinking that your system would be the best for me.

When LCHF works, it does so because it enables the individual to control their total consumption. And when LFHC works, it does so for the same reason. And the system that works for one person will not necessarily work for another. And since motivation is not related to macronutrient ratios, a balanced diet will work for yet others. And some people have medical or other issues and they cannot lose weight. And some people choose not to lose weight because they are happy the way they are or for other personal reasons.

The law of Conservation of Energy; the laws of Themordynamics; the laws of physics say absolutely noting about lifestyle change.

You are blaming the victim.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2335
Re: Death of the calorie - The Economist article
« Reply #28 on: May 14, 2019, 03:00:07 PM »
The thinking is that in terms of given overweight and obese people diet advice for losing excess fat, focusing on calories is not as effective or successful as focusing on carbohydrates.

No. What people need to focus on is a lifestyle change. Counting calories is a useful tool for most people as they assess how much they are eating. But the fundamental thing they need to focus on is changing the lifestyle patterns that lead them to consume more food energy than they burn. If you consume more than you expend you will gain weight. If you expend more than you consume you will lose weight.

You are blaming the victims.

What leads people to consume more calories in food than they burn is the nature of the food they consume.

Fast simple carbs cause the body to store more fat and at the same time decrease satiety and increase appetite.

No. I'm not blaming the victims. I'm re-stating the Law of Conservation of Energy. It's been demonstrated so many times as to be established science, that you can lose weight on any macronutrient mix, and that it's all a matter of motivation. You can lose weight eating nothing but Big Macs. You can lose weight eating nothing but veggies. Provided that you get the minimum necessary amounts of each nutrient, you can cut any of them to the bare minimum and get the bulk of your calories from any one of the others, and you can lose weight if you are sufficiently motivated.

You have fallen into the trap of thinking that what works for you is the best for everyone. It's really a wonderful thing (no sarcasm intended) that you have found a system that works for you. But you are mistaken in thinking that your system would be the best for me.

When LCHF works, it does so because it enables the individual to control their total consumption. And when LFHC works, it does so for the same reason. And the system that works for one person will not necessarily work for another. And since motivation is not related to macronutrient ratios, a balanced diet will work for yet others. And some people have medical or other issues and they cannot lose weight. And some people choose not to lose weight because they are happy the way they are or for other personal reasons.

The law of Conservation of Energy; the laws of Themordynamics; the laws of physics say absolutely noting about lifestyle change.

You are blaming the victim.

No he isn’t.  He’s pointing out that diets work by motivating the dieter.  A diet that works for one person, doesn’t work for another.  The dieter has control over the diet chosen.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Online daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9410
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Death of the calorie - The Economist article
« Reply #29 on: May 14, 2019, 03:23:33 PM »
The thinking is that in terms of given overweight and obese people diet advice for losing excess fat, focusing on calories is not as effective or successful as focusing on carbohydrates.

No. What people need to focus on is a lifestyle change. Counting calories is a useful tool for most people as they assess how much they are eating. But the fundamental thing they need to focus on is changing the lifestyle patterns that lead them to consume more food energy than they burn. If you consume more than you expend you will gain weight. If you expend more than you consume you will lose weight.

You are blaming the victims.

What leads people to consume more calories in food than they burn is the nature of the food they consume.

Fast simple carbs cause the body to store more fat and at the same time decrease satiety and increase appetite.

No. I'm not blaming the victims. I'm re-stating the Law of Conservation of Energy. It's been demonstrated so many times as to be established science, that you can lose weight on any macronutrient mix, and that it's all a matter of motivation. You can lose weight eating nothing but Big Macs. You can lose weight eating nothing but veggies. Provided that you get the minimum necessary amounts of each nutrient, you can cut any of them to the bare minimum and get the bulk of your calories from any one of the others, and you can lose weight if you are sufficiently motivated.

You have fallen into the trap of thinking that what works for you is the best for everyone. It's really a wonderful thing (no sarcasm intended) that you have found a system that works for you. But you are mistaken in thinking that your system would be the best for me.

When LCHF works, it does so because it enables the individual to control their total consumption. And when LFHC works, it does so for the same reason. And the system that works for one person will not necessarily work for another. And since motivation is not related to macronutrient ratios, a balanced diet will work for yet others. And some people have medical or other issues and they cannot lose weight. And some people choose not to lose weight because they are happy the way they are or for other personal reasons.

The law of Conservation of Energy; the laws of Themordynamics; the laws of physics say absolutely noting about lifestyle change.

You are blaming the victim.

Two entirely separate issues:

1. The Law of the Conservation of Energy says that changes in weight are due to a differential between energy consumed and energy expended.

2. If you want to change your weight and maintain a different weight, you need to change your lifestyle.

There's no blame and there's no "victim." Some people would rather be a different weight than they are. Some of those have physiological issues that make that difficult or impossible. Some have psychological issues. For the rest of us, weight loss will be temporary unless we change our lifestyle.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

 

personate-rain