Calories in vs Calories Out

Nutrition
21

That was an excellent read. To sum it up, his basic point was that the law of thermodynamics holds true, yet the end result is obviously quite different. Yes, 3000 calories from fat is exactly the same amount of energy as 3000 calories of carbs. However, what your body does with the 3000 calories and how it metabolizes it is quite different. His point is that humans are not a simple closed system such as a lab setting. Carbs and fat are utilized and processed in quite different ways and if you’ve never taken biochemistry and physiology then your really speaking out of your ass when you give an opinion based on logic.

The whole calorie in vs. calorie out argument is about one side, such as Taube’s, trying to explain the science behind it with a great grasp of individual metabolic processes and how they alter the flow of energy and matter; and the other side basically understanding one law such as thermodynamics and using it to simplify a really complicated thing such as human metabolic processes.

22

^ great breakdown.

Another way I look at is, if it’s as simple as CICO, then I guess just about every animal on the planet and humans (up till 30 yrs ago) we/are able to perfectly balance things. Yet, now all of a sudden w/in 30 yrs people (66%) cannot?

Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of people out there that don’t care, but this just doesn’t make sense.

23

i still think alot of people dont even realize taubes’ main point of CICO vs insulin response to food.

if somebody is insulin resistant and goes by CICO and still eats 400g of carbs, even though hes taking in less calories than he burns, he wont lose fat, because his physiology is so inefficient it doesnt utilize the carbs as energy, it stores them as fat.

this ^ was a fantastic interview.

24

[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
i still think alot of people dont even realize taubes’ main point of CICO vs insulin response to food.

if somebody is insulin resistant and goes by CICO and still eats 400g of carbs, even though hes taking in less calories than he burns, he wont lose fat, because his physiology is so inefficient it doesnt utilize the carbs as energy, it stores them as fat.

this ^ was a fantastic interview.[/quote]

I would aruge that Taubes would still say the person would lose weight if in a caloric deficit. But, either view is too simplistic :wink:

25

wannabebig, thanks for the vid btw- good stuff

26

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
wannabebig, thanks for the vid btw- good stuff[/quote]

heres a couple more if you want to watch.

27

Peter Attia (bald guy in very low carb performance video) has a great website.

28

Do we get fat because we overeat? Or do we overeat because were getting fat?

29

thanks as well for posting the Attia vids, hadn’t seen those before, but are simple, short and easy to understand to share with others.

30

One could also say that the calories in/calories out theory is significantly lacking in the fact that the human body does not process food the same way as a oven that raises the temperature of water by burning objects inside it. No matter how much food I cut up, I still haven’t found a single elusive calorie.

31

PALEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

32

[quote]DaBeard wrote:
…if you’ve never taken biochemistry and physiology then your really speaking out of your ass when you give an opinion based on logic.

The whole calorie in vs. calorie out argument is about one side, such as Taube’s, trying to explain the science behind it with a great grasp of individual metabolic processes and how they alter the flow of energy and matter; and the other side basically understanding one law such as thermodynamics and using it to simplify a really complicated thing such as human metabolic processes. [/quote]

Given that Lonnie and I are the only two to have spoken out against the Cult of Taubes in this thread, I feel that this was addressed, at least in part, to me. While I am not interested in qualifying myself for you, let me state that I was not aware my opinions in this forum can be summed up as “talking out of my ass”. I wasn’t aware that Lonnie, who is the guy you see in his avatar, looks like someone who does the same when talking nutrition, either.

Again, I will not get into a dick measuring contest and talk about where I went to school and what I have studied/am studying, but please understand that I am familiar with more than just one law.

Also, please note that Taubes, himself, is not formally educated in biochemistry and physiology, so your asinine comment cuts both ways.

Taubes’ theories have been tried, tested and found wanting. His RESEARCH has been evaluated and found wanting. There is nothing to what he says outside of anecdotes, cherry-picked studies from 40, 50, 60+ years ago and wishful thinking.

But, please, present you critically-evaluated, peer-reviewed case. I’d love to hear your defense of this “alternate” hypothesis.

33

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]DaBeard wrote:
…if you’ve never taken biochemistry and physiology then your really speaking out of your ass when you give an opinion based on logic.

The whole calorie in vs. calorie out argument is about one side, such as Taube’s, trying to explain the science behind it with a great grasp of individual metabolic processes and how they alter the flow of energy and matter; and the other side basically understanding one law such as thermodynamics and using it to simplify a really complicated thing such as human metabolic processes. [/quote]

Given that Lonnie and I are the only two to have spoken out against the Cult of Taubes in this thread, I feel that this was addressed, at least in part, to me. While I am not interested in qualifying myself for you, let me state that I was not aware my opinions in this forum can be summed up as “talking out of my ass”. I wasn’t aware that Lonnie, who is the guy you see in his avatar, looks like someone who does the same when talking nutrition, either.

Again, I will not get into a dick measuring contest and talk about where I went to school and what I have studied/am studying, but please understand that I am familiar with more than just one law.

Also, please note that Taubes, himself, is not formally educated in biochemistry and physiology, so your asinine comment cuts both ways.

Taubes’ theories have been tried, tested and found wanting. His RESEARCH has been evaluated and found wanting. There is nothing to what he says outside of anecdotes, cherry-picked studies from 40, 50, 60+ years ago and wishful thinking.

But, please, present you critically-evaluated, peer-reviewed case. I’d love to hear your defense of this “alternate” hypothesis.[/quote]

Please forgive me if you believe that I was referring to you or Lonnie. Actually, both your posts are quite revealing to the fact that you have a good grasp of the knowledge behind your stance on the topic. I was just trying to give a quick sum of what Taube’s meant using less words than he did. I actually agree with what you said about CICO having more bearing on body weight and not composition.

The only reason I gave a response is that it appears some people who are critics of Taubes don’t really hear the words he’s saying. He is for the most part speaking about obesity and fat gain, not pure body weight fluctuations.

As for myself, believe it or not I’ve never heard of Taubes before this thread, but I’ve been eating a diet similar to what he describes for the past year or so and personally have found that I am significantly leaner when eating most calories from fat and protein, as opposed to mostly carbs and protein. Not a scientific response, just personal experimentation.

Again, I really don’t appreciate how some people treat each other on T-Nation and respond to others posts and ideas with little respect. So once again, if I offended you, forgive me because it was not intended at you or Lonnie at all.

34

lol, Anonym, that’s 2 recent threads where the “law of the internet” was broken :wink: give me a lol if you get this joke on a few levels :smiley:

35

@6:55
“But, um… the point I wanna make, you know, the point I’m making in this study, is that carbohydrates are fattening. Period. Fat isn’t fattening, protein isn’t fattening, carbohydrates are fattening…”

@8:08
“The low-carb diet, as we know, is not calorie restricted diet. You can’t eat carbs, you can basically exercise as much gluttony as you want as long you’re eating fat and protein.”

Please… and I ain’t even trying. I can use this lying POS as a punching bag all day long.

36

[quote]DaBeard wrote:
Please forgive me if you believe that I was referring to you or Lonnie. Actually, both your posts are quite revealing to the fact that you have a good grasp of the knowledge behind your stance on the topic. I was just trying to give a quick sum of what Taube’s meant using less words than he did. I actually agree with what you said about CICO having more bearing on body weight and not composition.

The only reason I gave a response is that it appears some people who are critics of Taubes don’t really hear the words he’s saying. He is for the most part speaking about obesity and fat gain, not pure body weight fluctuations.

As for myself, believe it or not I’ve never heard of Taubes before this thread, but I’ve been eating a diet similar to what he describes for the past year or so and personally have found that I am significantly leaner when eating most calories from fat and protein, as opposed to mostly carbs and protein. Not a scientific response, just personal experimentation.

Again, I really don’t appreciate how some people treat each other on T-Nation and respond to others posts and ideas with little respect. So once again, if I offended you, forgive me because it was not intended at you or Lonnie at all.[/quote]

Aah, fair enough, man. I misread your initial post as being a combination of summary and personal observation, and since I only skimmed the OP this morning I didn’t catch the similarities.

Now it makes sense, as Taubes actually IS extremely condescending to people who don’t support his views… it’s one of the reasons why I find him to be such an annoying prick and why these discussions are so quick to raise my hackles.

It’s good that you’ve found what works for you, and the key to it all really IS personal experimentation. There isn’t any one dietary panacea out there, and using bad science to suggest that there is does nothing but a huge disservice to the field of nutrition.

37

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
lol, Anonym, that’s 2 recent threads where the “law of the internet” was broken :wink: give me a lol if you get this joke on a few levels :D[/quote]

lol

I think this is a sign of the coming Mayan apocalypse.

38

Do you blame Taubes? The man is obviously smart and fed up with all the shit out there. He may not be right on everything, but he’s literally dealing with educated people on a daily basis that remind me of people that post on this forum :wink:

Even I come off as a huge prick on here :wink:

39

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
lol, Anonym, that’s 2 recent threads where the “law of the internet” was broken :wink: give me a lol if you get this joke on a few levels :D[/quote]

Spoken just like Hitler…

To be fair, I think Taubes is basically offering an alternative for “regular peoples” eating patterns. This can be easy for those of us who have basically been doing this as a matter of routine for a decade or so to forget.

He is trying to get Wal Mart shoppers to stop buying poptars and Cheerio’s… We are trying to add .005 inches to our biceps and make sure our Iliac Crest is visible through our Under Armor shirts.

I am certain this is why he can make such claims as he does (“calories dont matter, exercise doesnt work”) with impunity really, because he is talking to people who eat so poorly and avoid exercise like the plague. For these people switching their diet around WOULD make massive difference, no doubt.

40

This is anecdotal but in response to a few posts on here.

I had a few seniors try out a 30-day Paleo challenge. The only instructions I gave them were 1. Eat Paleo foods 2. avoid anything not Paleo

They all lost weight, no talk of portion control, no talk about exercise.

Now, all 3 were/are execising, one at least decreased her activity levels (she is rather active for a 70 yr old) and her current diet before wasn’t bad, and her blood work was actually quite good as well, and not really overweight.

Anyways, her in particular increased her portions (her words not mine), who knows about calorie wise, decreased her exercise, and she lost 10#s in a month, and 2" on her waist.

Look, we can go over all day how it’s about CICO, but what normal person wants to be in a lifelong battle of that? If there is an eating strategy that allows one to eat until their content w/o being anal about measuring, allows them to naturally control their body’s inate ability to want to be at a good weight, why not promote the hell out of that approach rather than tell people, sure you can eat your shit food, just keep your energy in balance, oh and good luck with that :wink: