Seriously Fascinating Article About Gut Bacteria Link To Obesity

[robblok]

This article screams at me: DON'T FORGET YOUR DAILY KEFIR!

Every article that extols the benefits of kefir will include fat loss as a benefit.

Yes good digestive health is paramount. Your whole immune system is compromised without good digestion.

Guess what im taking my kefir every day and I did not start loosing large amounts of weight since that period. Like i said I do believe it all counts but I don't think it counts as much as some people think it does. I think you are really lucky if you can ramp up your BMR with all these things by 10% and sorry i cant back my claims here. I

[ableguy]

If it's a personal story, and I don't know if it is ... maybe your issue stems from ...

I just found this article and I am still digesting it.*

Man ... you have to cut back on those articles!

* BTW ... nice pun ...

.

Forgive me, but most of these articles just add to the crock o' <deleted> that is already brimming with silliness. The simple fact, and it remains unchanged, is that if you are not calorie deficit, you will not lose weight, and vice versa. Some people may require more or less calories on a daily basis, but the equation remains the same. All, (and I mean 100%) of the fat people I know, eat large amounts of horrible food. in the same breath, all (again 100%) the people I know who are in shape, tend to intake far less calories than their overweight counterparts, and /or do a lot of exercise. I've told this story before , about a significantly overweight friend of mine, who always complains about his weight, and how he walks about 10kms 4-5 times a week. I went to his house one day, and his cupboards are full of chocolates, cakes, potato chips etc, and he ate a rather large amount of said food during the short time I was there. Now, does that tell you anything ?

Yes you have a fat greedy friend.

[tropo]

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/11/6-diet-myths-busted/

Consider this comment from the article you linked:

MiG says:

January 19, 2013 at 7:26 AM

Your complaint is correct but your reasoning is as flawed as if you got the answer from a crystal ball.

The laws of thermodynamics are not a lab curiosity, they are universal laws that withstand our best efforts to circumvent them.

Because there are no nuclear reactions within us, it’s ultimately it’s a balance of the energy in the bonds between atoms of EVERYTHING that goes in and out of us. I hope you understand that that’s an extraordinarily difficult thing to quantify, and that’s why the simple formula is abused.

The biggest problem is that assessing “calories out” is almost impossible, and “calories in” is also subject to assumptions. The basic equation is sound, but the inputs are never correct.

If you don’t extract all the energy that the calorimeter says you consumed, it will come out of you one way or another. There is no disappearing energy! However there are plenty of asinine simplifications, assumptions and ignorance. Digestion differences and heat output from person to person will change “energy out” in ways that pathetic statistics based formulas will not account for! You’d need to know the exact change in potential energy stored in the person’s body (either by fat or other biological processes), the exact heat loss, the exact potential energy lost in EVERYTHING that comes out of them. We’re talking knowing the amounts and composition of the gasses, solids and liquids that come in and out of a person. For example, our digestion can produce methane. Methane is energetic and reactive enough that it’s called a fuel!

If everyone just avoided the pseudo physics the world would be a better place. An analogy of sorts to what the fitness world is doing with physics, is taking an out of context quote from a philosophy book as an unequivocal argument.

All I want if people to realize that you can only apply “energy in – energy out” to complex systems in an approximate way, and that is *not a flaw in the laws of thermodynamics.*

[bangkokpoppys]

JT great article thanks for sharing it.

[tropo]

This article screams at me: DON'T FORGET YOUR DAILY KEFIR!

Every article that extols the benefits of kefir will include fat loss as a benefit.

Yes good digestive health is paramount. Your whole immune system is compromised without good digestion.

Guess what im taking my kefir every day and I did not start loosing large amounts of weight since that period. Like i said I do believe it all counts but I don't think it counts as much as some people think it does. I think you are really lucky if you can ramp up your BMR with all these things by 10% and sorry i cant back my claims here. I

Whether kefir works or not to help fat loss. or how well it works, would depend on the condition of the person's digestive system at the time they started taking it.

Probably by the time you started consuming it you were already quite lean, and you probably had a decent working digestive system anyway because you've always consumed yogurt.

Let's face it, trying to drop down below 10% bodyfat (for example) is a whole different proposition than trying to lose a percent or two if you are over 30%.

So basically what I'm saying is that the condition of your gut microflora was not your limiting factor.

[robblok]

This article screams at me: DON'T FORGET YOUR DAILY KEFIR!

Every article that extols the benefits of kefir will include fat loss as a benefit.

Yes good digestive health is paramount. Your whole immune system is compromised without good digestion.

Guess what im taking my kefir every day and I did not start loosing large amounts of weight since that period. Like i said I do believe it all counts but I don't think it counts as much as some people think it does. I think you are really lucky if you can ramp up your BMR with all these things by 10% and sorry i cant back my claims here. I

Whether kefir works or not to help fat loss. or how well it works, would depend on the condition of the person's digestive system at the time they started taking it.

Probably by the time you started consuming it you were already quite lean, and you probably had a decent working digestive system anyway because you've always consumed yogurt.

Let's face it, trying to drop down below 10% bodyfat (for example) is a whole different proposition than trying to lose a percent or two if you are over 30%.

So basically what I'm saying is that the condition of your gut microflora was not your limiting factor.

I got nothing against kefir, just mean to say there is no real miracle cure and stuff like that.. i believe it all helps but its % work not 10% work.

[tropo]

I got nothing against kefir, just mean to say there is no real miracle cure and stuff like that.. i believe it all helps but its % work not 10% work.

I know you've got nothing against kefir - you take it!

As I said, it will depend on the condition of the person's digestive system. It could help 50% or more for a badly compromised system. For some people it could indeed be a "miracle cure".

[Tolley]

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/11/6-diet-myths-busted/

Consider this comment from the article you linked:

MiG says:

January 19, 2013 at 7:26 AM

Your complaint is correct but your reasoning is as flawed as if you got the answer from a crystal ball.

The laws of thermodynamics are not a lab curiosity, they are universal laws that withstand our best efforts to circumvent them.

Because there are no nuclear reactions within us, it’s ultimately it’s a balance of the energy in the bonds between atoms of EVERYTHING that goes in and out of us. I hope you understand that that’s an extraordinarily difficult thing to quantify, and that’s why the simple formula is abused.

The biggest problem is that assessing “calories out” is almost impossible, and “calories in” is also subject to assumptions. The basic equation is sound, but the inputs are never correct.

If you don’t extract all the energy that the calorimeter says you consumed, it will come out of you one way or another. There is no disappearing energy! However there are plenty of asinine simplifications, assumptions and ignorance. Digestion differences and heat output from person to person will change “energy out” in ways that pathetic statistics based formulas will not account for! You’d need to know the exact change in potential energy stored in the person’s body (either by fat or other biological processes), the exact heat loss, the exact potential energy lost in EVERYTHING that comes out of them. We’re talking knowing the amounts and composition of the gasses, solids and liquids that come in and out of a person. For example, our digestion can produce methane. Methane is energetic and reactive enough that it’s called a fuel!

If everyone just avoided the pseudo physics the world would be a better place. An analogy of sorts to what the fitness world is doing with physics, is taking an out of context quote from a philosophy book as an unequivocal argument.

All I want if people to realize that you can only apply “energy in – energy out” to complex systems in an approximate way, and that is *not a flaw in the laws of thermodynamics.*

Yes I saw that but that sort of agrees with the proposition that calories in calories out is far too simplistic just that the writers reasoning was wrong.

The link from fox news is a far better article I think.

[chiang mai]

All my adult life I have weighed around 77 kilo's and no amounts of starvation or high calorie diets has ever managed to change that number by more than 1 kilo during a forty year period, believe me when I say I had tried because at 189 cms I needed to gain weight, or so I was always told.

A year and a half ago I moved from Phuket to Chiang Mai and during the third quarter of the year I started to gain weight, this despite my caloric intake and exersise regime remaining the same ( I have visited the gym at least three times a week for several years). Ah I thought, perhaps it's the change from a hot humid climate to a slightly cooler one that's caused the weight gain, actually I was begining to enjoy it all and my recent physcial exam showed that everything was in order. It's worth noting here that my food intake and my energy expended through exersise remained constant, these were aspects of my life that had existed for many years and never changed.

By early Spring of 2012 I was starting to get worried, my weight had increased to 85 kilo's and my clothes no longer fit, repeated visits to various doctors provided no clues and my blood works looked fine. Then in April 2012 I started to feel unwell and a blood test showed that all my numbers were seriously wonky and the medical profession provided no clues as to what might be happening other than my body mass was increasing, proportionately I might add but eventually up to 90 kilo's.

I final resorted to my own research and concluded that I had metabolic syndrome, a visit to an endocrinologist confirmed that fact and I was ordered to loose 10% of my body weight - loosing body weight when you are a big eater is one thing, for me it was quite difficult to do until I went seriously radical and went on a near startvation diet for three weeks (as an aside, I recall discussions/PM's with Roblock and Tropo on this subject of weight loss at that time hence this is not an imagined event, one or the other thought I had resorted to extreme measures but it did do the trick).

When I got back down to 80 kilo's my blood works numbers returned to normal and I felt much better, unfortunately by that time a blood test confirmed that I had developed Type II Diabetes, where it all came from and how it all developed is still a mystery to me because my diet has always been quite healthy and I have always worked out at the gym, the only variable in there is aging. Today I weigh 77 kilo's and I'm really happy about that, my diet remains very low carb and my exercise routine remains in place. Exactly why the doctors never spotted the link between weight gain and diabetes at an early stage is a mystery and very frustrating for me personally, this depsite my having undergone a whole series of tests including a CT scan, an endoscopy, a capsule endoscopy, a barium follow through test and more blood exams than I care to think about, all under the care of two well respected gastroenterologists!

So, draw whatever conclusions from the above that you will but be aware of a couple of important messages: metabolic syndrome is a marker for Type II, we all have our own natural body weight (regardless of the BMI), unexpected weight gains (without apparent cause are a marker for something that is not right, trying to identify that something may however not be that easy).

.

[tropo]

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/11/6-diet-myths-busted/

Consider this comment from the article you linked:

MiG says:

January 19, 2013 at 7:26 AM

Your complaint is correct but your reasoning is as flawed as if you got the answer from a crystal ball.

The laws of thermodynamics are not a lab curiosity, they are universal laws that withstand our best efforts to circumvent them.

Because there are no nuclear reactions within us, it’s ultimately it’s a balance of the energy in the bonds between atoms of EVERYTHING that goes in and out of us. I hope you understand that that’s an extraordinarily difficult thing to quantify, and that’s why the simple formula is abused.

The biggest problem is that assessing “calories out” is almost impossible, and “calories in” is also subject to assumptions. The basic equation is sound, but the inputs are never correct.

If you don’t extract all the energy that the calorimeter says you consumed, it will come out of you one way or another. There is no disappearing energy! However there are plenty of asinine simplifications, assumptions and ignorance. Digestion differences and heat output from person to person will change “energy out” in ways that pathetic statistics based formulas will not account for! You’d need to know the exact change in potential energy stored in the person’s body (either by fat or other biological processes), the exact heat loss, the exact potential energy lost in EVERYTHING that comes out of them. We’re talking knowing the amounts and composition of the gasses, solids and liquids that come in and out of a person. For example, our digestion can produce methane. Methane is energetic and reactive enough that it’s called a fuel!

If everyone just avoided the pseudo physics the world would be a better place. An analogy of sorts to what the fitness world is doing with physics, is taking an out of context quote from a philosophy book as an unequivocal argument.

All I want if people to realize that you can only apply “energy in – energy out” to complex systems in an approximate way, and that is *not a flaw in the laws of thermodynamics.*

Yes I saw that but that sort of agrees with the proposition that calories in calories out is far too simplistic just that the writers reasoning was wrong.

The link from fox news is a far better article I think.

I took it to mean that calories in/calories out is true, just that the numbers are nearly impossible to accurately determine and therefore it's difficult to come up with accurate experimental results to prove it.

[robblok]

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/11/6-diet-myths-busted/

Consider this comment from the article you linked:

MiG says:

January 19, 2013 at 7:26 AM

Your complaint is correct but your reasoning is as flawed as if you got the answer from a crystal ball.

The laws of thermodynamics are not a lab curiosity, they are universal laws that withstand our best efforts to circumvent them.

Because there are no nuclear reactions within us, it’s ultimately it’s a balance of the energy in the bonds between atoms of EVERYTHING that goes in and out of us. I hope you understand that that’s an extraordinarily difficult thing to quantify, and that’s why the simple formula is abused.

The biggest problem is that assessing “calories out” is almost impossible, and “calories in” is also subject to assumptions. The basic equation is sound, but the inputs are never correct.

If you don’t extract all the energy that the calorimeter says you consumed, it will come out of you one way or another. There is no disappearing energy! However there are plenty of asinine simplifications, assumptions and ignorance. Digestion differences and heat output from person to person will change “energy out” in ways that pathetic statistics based formulas will not account for! You’d need to know the exact change in potential energy stored in the person’s body (either by fat or other biological processes), the exact heat loss, the exact potential energy lost in EVERYTHING that comes out of them. We’re talking knowing the amounts and composition of the gasses, solids and liquids that come in and out of a person. For example, our digestion can produce methane. Methane is energetic and reactive enough that it’s called a fuel!

If everyone just avoided the pseudo physics the world would be a better place. An analogy of sorts to what the fitness world is doing with physics, is taking an out of context quote from a philosophy book as an unequivocal argument.

All I want if people to realize that you can only apply “energy in – energy out” to complex systems in an approximate way, and that is *not a flaw in the laws of thermodynamics.*

Yes I saw that but that sort of agrees with the proposition that calories in calories out is far too simplistic just that the writers reasoning was wrong.

The link from fox news is a far better article I think.

Of course its too simple.. and there are other variables but it still shows that eating too much will result in weight gain. Yes there are other things that need to be in check that influence. I think we do agree here mostly. I dont believe that the formula's are good for everyone for sure they don't work for me as i need to consume a lot less as those formula's state. But I do believe that intake and expenditure rule weight gain and loss together with those other things. But intake is the main cause these other things do have influence but its not really major in most cases.

[Tolley]

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/11/6-diet-myths-busted/

Consider this comment from the article you linked:

MiG says:

January 19, 2013 at 7:26 AM

Your complaint is correct but your reasoning is as flawed as if you got the answer from a crystal ball.

The laws of thermodynamics are not a lab curiosity, they are universal laws that withstand our best efforts to circumvent them.

Because there are no nuclear reactions within us, it’s ultimately it’s a balance of the energy in the bonds between atoms of EVERYTHING that goes in and out of us. I hope you understand that that’s an extraordinarily difficult thing to quantify, and that’s why the simple formula is abused.

The biggest problem is that assessing “calories out” is almost impossible, and “calories in” is also subject to assumptions. The basic equation is sound, but the inputs are never correct.

If you don’t extract all the energy that the calorimeter says you consumed, it will come out of you one way or another. There is no disappearing energy! However there are plenty of asinine simplifications, assumptions and ignorance. Digestion differences and heat output from person to person will change “energy out” in ways that pathetic statistics based formulas will not account for! You’d need to know the exact change in potential energy stored in the person’s body (either by fat or other biological processes), the exact heat loss, the exact potential energy lost in EVERYTHING that comes out of them. We’re talking knowing the amounts and composition of the gasses, solids and liquids that come in and out of a person. For example, our digestion can produce methane. Methane is energetic and reactive enough that it’s called a fuel!

If everyone just avoided the pseudo physics the world would be a better place. An analogy of sorts to what the fitness world is doing with physics, is taking an out of context quote from a philosophy book as an unequivocal argument.

All I want if people to realize that you can only apply “energy in – energy out” to complex systems in an approximate way, and that is *not a flaw in the laws of thermodynamics.*

Yes I saw that but that sort of agrees with the proposition that calories in calories out is far too simplistic just that the writers reasoning was wrong.

The link from fox news is a far better article I think.

Of course its too simple.. and there are other variables but it still shows that eating too much will result in weight gain. Yes there are other things that need to be in check that influence. I think we do agree here mostly. I dont believe that the formula's are good for everyone for sure they don't work for me as i need to consume a lot less as those formula's state. But I do believe that intake and expenditure rule weight gain and loss together with those other things. But intake is the main cause these other things do have influence but its not really major in most cases.

We have quite a few really overweight on the project where I work now and believe me these people are eating nothing for lunch. They come along with little tubs of sardines and salad and I am eating big plates of chicken rice and salad like 5 times the size they are eating and I am wondering why they are so fat. Of course I don't know what they eat when they are not at work but still the calories in calories out seems to be more true for some people but not for others that is all I am really saying. Edited April 24, 2013 by Tolley

[robblok]

Yes I saw that but that sort of agrees with the proposition that calories in calories out is far too simplistic just that the writers reasoning was wrong.

The link from fox news is a far better article I think.

Of course its too simple.. and there are other variables but it still shows that eating too much will result in weight gain. Yes there are other things that need to be in check that influence. I think we do agree here mostly. I dont believe that the formula's are good for everyone for sure they don't work for me as i need to consume a lot less as those formula's state. But I do believe that intake and expenditure rule weight gain and loss together with those other things. But intake is the main cause these other things do have influence but its not really major in most cases.

We have quite a few really overweight on the project where I work now and believe me these people are eating nothing for lunch. They come along with little tubs of sardines and salad and I am eating big plates of chicken rice and salad like 5 times the size they are eating and I am wondering why they are so fat. Of course I don't know what they eat when they are not at work but still the calories in calories out seems to be more true for some people but not for others that is all I am really saying.

You don't have to tell me that if i compare what i eat with others i am not eating much at all.. thyroid influence. But also don't forget you are quite active they might not be. But yes there is a large variation between what people burn i have stated that before. But it still means if they eat less they will burn fat. But of course this has its limits.

I have looked into that thyroid problem and between low and high there can be a 20% difference in burn.. imagine you can eat 600 calories over a day more then someone else day in and day out. That is a big difference.. even at 300 or 2000 calories over the years it really ads up. So yes there are people who really have to work a lot harder then others.

I seem to gain weight when i eat over 2200 cals a day and you probably have seen my pictures and know i train hard. For others they can't even gain weight at 3000 calories. So yes there is difference... for me loosing weight means around 1500-1700(still not starving) calories while they could loose at 2500.

I never said there were no differences in how fast people burn because there certainly are, but within those parameters it still goes eat less then you burn and you loose weight. For me eating less is not fun as I get hungry then. Also i have seen docu's about that trigger.. its not the same for everyone so if you don't have that trigger but a low MBR you have no problem..but if you have a low MBR and that trigger....

So agree with JT that it is not fair and not everyone is the same and some people have to fight harder.. but i refuse to exclude peoples own responsibility.

[Kalbo]

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/11/6-diet-myths-busted/

Consider this comment from the article you linked:

MiG says:

January 19, 2013 at 7:26 AM

Your complaint is correct but your reasoning is as flawed as if you got the answer from a crystal ball.

The laws of thermodynamics are not a lab curiosity, they are universal laws that withstand our best efforts to circumvent them.

Because there are no nuclear reactions within us, it’s ultimately it’s a balance of the energy in the bonds between atoms of EVERYTHING that goes in and out of us. I hope you understand that that’s an extraordinarily difficult thing to quantify, and that’s why the simple formula is abused.

The biggest problem is that assessing “calories out” is almost impossible, and “calories in” is also subject to assumptions. The basic equation is sound, but the inputs are never correct.

If you don’t extract all the energy that the calorimeter says you consumed, it will come out of you one way or another. There is no disappearing energy! However there are plenty of asinine simplifications, assumptions and ignorance. Digestion differences and heat output from person to person will change “energy out” in ways that pathetic statistics based formulas will not account for! You’d need to know the exact change in potential energy stored in the person’s body (either by fat or other biological processes), the exact heat loss, the exact potential energy lost in EVERYTHING that comes out of them. We’re talking knowing the amounts and composition of the gasses, solids and liquids that come in and out of a person. For example, our digestion can produce methane. Methane is energetic and reactive enough that it’s called a fuel!

If everyone just avoided the pseudo physics the world would be a better place. An analogy of sorts to what the fitness world is doing with physics, is taking an out of context quote from a philosophy book as an unequivocal argument.

All I want if people to realize that you can only apply “energy in – energy out” to complex systems in an approximate way, and that is *not a flaw in the laws of thermodynamics.*

Yes I saw that but that sort of agrees with the proposition that calories in calories out is far too simplistic just that the writers reasoning was wrong.

The link from fox news is a far better article I think.

You're slightly off. It says that the precept of calories in vs calories out is valid, but in practice is difficult to measure and quantify what goes in and what actually comes out.

[robblok]

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/11/6-diet-myths-busted/

Consider this comment from the article you linked:

MiG says:

January 19, 2013 at 7:26 AM

Your complaint is correct but your reasoning is as flawed as if you got the answer from a crystal ball.

The laws of thermodynamics are not a lab curiosity, they are universal laws that withstand our best efforts to circumvent them.

Because there are no nuclear reactions within us, it’s ultimately it’s a balance of the energy in the bonds between atoms of EVERYTHING that goes in and out of us. I hope you understand that that’s an extraordinarily difficult thing to quantify, and that’s why the simple formula is abused.

The biggest problem is that assessing “calories out” is almost impossible, and “calories in” is also subject to assumptions. The basic equation is sound, but the inputs are never correct.

If you don’t extract all the energy that the calorimeter says you consumed, it will come out of you one way or another. There is no disappearing energy! However there are plenty of asinine simplifications, assumptions and ignorance. Digestion differences and heat output from person to person will change “energy out” in ways that pathetic statistics based formulas will not account for! You’d need to know the exact change in potential energy stored in the person’s body (either by fat or other biological processes), the exact heat loss, the exact potential energy lost in EVERYTHING that comes out of them. We’re talking knowing the amounts and composition of the gasses, solids and liquids that come in and out of a person. For example, our digestion can produce methane. Methane is energetic and reactive enough that it’s called a fuel!

If everyone just avoided the pseudo physics the world would be a better place. An analogy of sorts to what the fitness world is doing with physics, is taking an out of context quote from a philosophy book as an unequivocal argument.

All I want if people to realize that you can only apply “energy in – energy out” to complex systems in an approximate way, and that is *not a flaw in the laws of thermodynamics.*

Yes I saw that but that sort of agrees with the proposition that calories in calories out is far too simplistic just that the writers reasoning was wrong.

The link from fox news is a far better article I think.

You're slightly off. It says that the precept of calories in vs calories out is valid, but in practice is difficult to measure and quantify what goes in and what actually comes out.

Indeed, so cutting calories will help once you know what keeps you on weight. I found out long ago that the formula's were way off for me but for others they were useful. But once i found a point of how much i could eat to stay on weight i just ate less. It worked, it is still frustrating of course that I am still a bit hungry during the day. Never fully satisfied, reduce 15 (sibutramine) helped with that on my holiday because then the temptation was ever present.

I tried other stuff like the stuff that works for JT and ja buk (conjak root) none seem to really work that good on me. I have started taking thyroid medicine 100mg of t4 and will see end of this month how that affects my thyroid levels. But i can't say i see a change in what i can eat, but it has done wonders for my energy levels.

I also believe that sugars and stuff are not good for you and are worse as other calories same with carbs but it depends on how good you can handle them. People just have to find out there is no one thing is good for all. But after all this the fact remains some people have it easier as other people. Genetics does play a role we can't all be like lance armstrong or Arnold swarzenegger but we can improve on ourselves given our limitations.

So yes people are for a large part responsible, and many fat people can blame themselves but there is a group among them who really tries and has a hard time loosing the weight so any new research is interesting.

Like i said before in one of the documentaries i watched about this topic i there was an experiment done, the offered children cake and sweets. Some of them took them and keep taking them while others did not. They did not have the urge to eat again and again. If i did not have the hunger pang it would be much easier to stay on weight and still be healthy. So i would love a supplement that helped with that now its often an uphill battle. But to combat this i just make sure i got a few apples handy for when i get the urge to eat something. Its about finding out what helps for you and yes that is hard but it can be done.

[Tolley]

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/11/6-diet-myths-busted/

Consider this comment from the article you linked:

MiG says:

January 19, 2013 at 7:26 AM

Your complaint is correct but your reasoning is as flawed as if you got the answer from a crystal ball.

The laws of thermodynamics are not a lab curiosity, they are universal laws that withstand our best efforts to circumvent them.

Because there are no nuclear reactions within us, it’s ultimately it’s a balance of the energy in the bonds between atoms of EVERYTHING that goes in and out of us. I hope you understand that that’s an extraordinarily difficult thing to quantify, and that’s why the simple formula is abused.

The biggest problem is that assessing “calories out” is almost impossible, and “calories in” is also subject to assumptions. The basic equation is sound, but the inputs are never correct.

If you don’t extract all the energy that the calorimeter says you consumed, it will come out of you one way or another. There is no disappearing energy! However there are plenty of asinine simplifications, assumptions and ignorance. Digestion differences and heat output from person to person will change “energy out” in ways that pathetic statistics based formulas will not account for! You’d need to know the exact change in potential energy stored in the person’s body (either by fat or other biological processes), the exact heat loss, the exact potential energy lost in EVERYTHING that comes out of them. We’re talking knowing the amounts and composition of the gasses, solids and liquids that come in and out of a person. For example, our digestion can produce methane. Methane is energetic and reactive enough that it’s called a fuel!

If everyone just avoided the pseudo physics the world would be a better place. An analogy of sorts to what the fitness world is doing with physics, is taking an out of context quote from a philosophy book as an unequivocal argument.

All I want if people to realize that you can only apply “energy in – energy out” to complex systems in an approximate way, and that is *not a flaw in the laws of thermodynamics.*

Yes I saw that but that sort of agrees with the proposition that calories in calories out is far too simplistic just that the writers reasoning was wrong.

The link from fox news is a far better article I think.

You're slightly off. It says that the precept of calories in vs calories out is valid, but in practice is difficult to measure and quantify what goes in and what actually comes out.

If you cant quantifiy what goes in or what goes out then ipso facto calories in vs calories is not really an accurate yardstick for measurement.

[tropo]

If you cant quantifiy what goes in or what goes out then ipso facto calories in vs calories is not really an accurate yardstick for measurement.

It's still the best yardstick we have. If you eat less of what you're eating you will lose fat.

Changing up what you eat will make comparisons very complicated.

Edited April 25, 2013 by tropo

[robblok]

Just see it as a car some have better mileage (use less fuel) and some fuels bring you further as others. But in the end putting in less fuel will decrease how far you can go. After a while you know what you can do to decrease and what you can do to increase.

The absolute numbers are indeed not working well but the principle still holds eat less or exercise more to loose weight.

And as I always say life is not fair for some its harder as others.

Like Tropo always says if it was real easy everyone was in great shape.

[Tolley]

If you cant quantifiy what goes in or what goes out then ipso facto calories in vs calories is not really an accurate yardstick for measurement.

It's still the best yardstick we have. If you eat less of what you're eating you will lose fat.

Changing up what you eat will make comparisons very complicated.

I have never worried about calories at all because if you get the diet right the calories take care of themselves.

If you cut out dairy, red meat, sugar, fried foods and refined carbs, or at the very least severely limit them I believe you will have no weight issues providing of course there are no prevailing medical issues.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Tolley

[tropo]

Like Tropo always says if it was real easy everyone was in great shape.

... and going a step further, if everyone was in great shape there wouldn't be the same sense of satisfaction when great condition has been attained.

[tropo]

If you cant quantifiy what goes in or what goes out then ipso facto calories in vs calories is not really an accurate yardstick for measurement.

It's still the best yardstick we have. If you eat less of what you're eating you will lose fat.

Changing up what you eat will make comparisons very complicated.

I have never worried about calories at all because if you get the diet right the calories take care of themselves.

If you cut out dairy, red meat, sugar, fried foods and refined carbs, or at the very least severely limit them I believe you will have no weight issues providing of course there are no prevailing medical issues.

Perhaps the calories will take care of themselves if you're not looking at a specific goal, but if you want to attain perfection (lean and hard with zero flab) you're going to have to consider them.

I have no problems with lots of dairy, red meat, WPC, cheese - plus a limited consumption of refined carbs. Why? ... because fat levels can be kept under control by considering my total daily intake of calories.

[Jingthing]

Inspired by this article I plan to eat a lot more BITTER MELON, a vegetable I already love very much. But it really is a bitter taste and not for everyone. It helps to parboil the slices for a few minutes to remove some bitterness and pairs well with strong flavors like fermented black beans, garlic, ginger, chilies, and even in curries.

About Chinese yam, is this available fresh in Thai markets? I think a similar vegetable they use here is cassava but that's not the same thing.

[robblok]

I havent seen it that does not mean its not there.. you should look into konjak root, i seen (and used) packages of it. Basically its something you can eat but is 0 calories as it is hard to digest. You can use it as a pasta or just something to eat, i stir fried it with some soi sauce and meat. (haven't done it for a while now)

[Kalbo]

Consider this comment from the article you linked:


MiG says:
January 19, 2013 at 7:26 AM

Your complaint is correct but your reasoning is as flawed as if you got the answer from a crystal ball.
The laws of thermodynamics are not a lab curiosity, they are universal laws that withstand our best efforts to circumvent them.
Because there are no nuclear reactions within us, it’s ultimately it’s a balance of the energy in the bonds between atoms of EVERYTHING that goes in and out of us. I hope you understand that that’s an extraordinarily difficult thing to quantify, and that’s why the simple formula is abused.
The biggest problem is that assessing “calories out” is almost impossible, and “calories in” is also subject to assumptions. The basic equation is sound, but the inputs are never correct.
If you don’t extract all the energy that the calorimeter says you consumed, it will come out of you one way or another. There is no disappearing energy! However there are plenty of asinine simplifications, assumptions and ignorance. Digestion differences and heat output from person to person will change “energy out” in ways that pathetic statistics based formulas will not account for! You’d need to know the exact change in potential energy stored in the person’s body (either by fat or other biological processes), the exact heat loss, the exact potential energy lost in EVERYTHING that comes out of them. We’re talking knowing the amounts and composition of the gasses, solids and liquids that come in and out of a person. For example, our digestion can produce methane. Methane is energetic and reactive enough that it’s called a fuel!
If everyone just avoided the pseudo physics the world would be a better place. An analogy of sorts to what the fitness world is doing with physics, is taking an out of context quote from a philosophy book as an unequivocal argument.
All I want if people to realize that you can only apply “energy in – energy out” to complex systems in an approximate way, and that is *not a flaw in the laws of thermodynamics.*

Yes I saw that but that sort of agrees with the proposition that calories in calories out is far too simplistic just that the writers reasoning was wrong.

The link from fox news is a far better article I think.

You're slightly off. It says that the precept of calories in vs calories out is valid, but in practice is difficult to measure and quantify what goes in and what actually comes out.

'If you cant quantifiy what goes in or what goes out then ipso facto calories in vs calories is not really an accurate yardstick for measurement.'

Whether it is an accurate yardstick for measurement or not, the fact remains the same. Eat too many calories and you will put on weight (fat)

Edited April 26, 2013 by Kalbo

[Jingthing]

This article may give high red meat protein "diet" enthusiastics some pause. Also related to gut bacteria. I think there is a great chance the great breakthrough the world has been waiting for in combating the obesity epidemic is related to gut bacteria.

Also note this harmful substance in red meat is also found in ENERGY DRINKS and l-carnitine supplements used by body builder gym rat types (you know who you are).

The results are published in Nature Medicine today. Co-author Stanley Hazen, head of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, says that the study could signal a new approach to diet and health. In some cases, an individual’s collection of intestinal microbes may be as important to their diet as anything on a nutrition label, he says. “Bacteria make a whole slew of molecules from food,” he says, “and those molecules can have a huge effect on our metabolic processes.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=red-meat-clogs-arteries-bacteria

Here is more detail about this major scientific news (text or audio clip 12 minutes)

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/12/177029247/red-meats-heart-risk-goes-beyond-the-fat

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=177029247&m=177029236

Edited October 18, 2013 by Jingthing

[canuckamuck]

Thanks for the article jingthing. There was a lot of useful and thought provoking info in there for me.

[Tolley]

There is consistently a lot of research implicating red meat and dairy in a variety of potential health condtions.

Apart from a good quality yogurt I dont see any need to consume any other dairy products.

Red meat is a bit trickier as there are things in red meat that are hard to get from other foods.

A small amount of red meat once or twice a week is a good compromise here.

[Tolley]

There is consistently a lot of research implicating red meat and dairy in a variety of potential health condtions.

Apart from a good quality yogurt I dont see any need to consume any other dairy products.

Red meat is a bit trickier as there are things in red meat that are hard to get from other foods.

A small amount of red meat once or twice a week is a good compromise here.

[Ulysses G.]

Rejoice!

Eating fat is good for you: Doctors change their minds after 40 years

A DIET packed with fat is the healthy way to prevent heart disease, a leading British expert has claimed.

By: Jo Willey

http://www.express.co.uk/news/health/438600/Eating-fat-is-good-for-you-Doctors-change-their-minds-after-40-years

[Jingthing]

Gut bacteria research is HOTTING up!

No they won't come up with a magic bullet but the possibility of a very effective bacteria based HELPER that combined with reasonable food take and exercise adds up to long term success against obesity for significant percentages of people (NOTHING like that is offered by medicine today short of surgery) seems possible or even probable. That would indeed be revolutionary. Even a 25 percent success rate would be fantastic compared to what's on offer now medically and compared to the tiny success rates of people using diet and exercise alone.

The kwashiorkor study shows that genetically similar individuals can host vastly different communities of bacteria, and that those differences influence how food is processed, how nutrients are absorbed, and yes, how much you weigh. It will provide a launching point for researchers to determine whether doctors can deliberately impose similar changes on patients in both the developed world and in wealthy nations.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/billion_to_one/2013/11/microbiome_and_weight_loss_starving_children_in_africa_have_different_bacteria.html

Edited November 20, 2013 by Jingthing