Wait, what?Doh. You started out so well there. Then you had to throw in that last bit. So, you claim that calories are all different, but all you need is less of them. Those two sentences are incompatible.
Lets just start out with conservation of MASS. (Mass in) - (Mass out) = (Mass gained or lost). That's really all there is to it. Not calories; science 101 states that. All scientists think that is true until you talk about food; then basic science goes out the window and people think (Calories in) - (Calories out) = (Mass gained or lost). Unless your body is a nuclear reactor, that statement violates the basis of physics and chemistry.
Now, mass in is easy to understand but it is extremely difficult to control long term for most people. Mass out is where the differences lie. Some food is easily digested, some isn't. Food types (high fiber is almost the polar opposite of high sugar; high protein helps with controlling mass in, and so on), exercise, gut bacteria, quantities above your ability to digest, general health level, etc. all affect the mass out portion.
Wait, what?
What is the mass of a single calorie?
I still don't understand what you mean. call me dumb but I need a better explanation.I would presume the notion was that calorie = 'effect on body equivalent to x mass of fat gained + y work done'. I personally think the notion is ridiculous at face value but it apparently must be entertained as long as a large portion of our population feels it's interchangeable with gasoline.
Notably missing from that article was his pre-twinkie diet caloric intake. If he cut from a metabolically stable (for him) 4000cal/day to a metabolically starvation (for him) 1800cal/day, I have no doubt he'd drop some weight. I worked with a gentleman (34ish? yrs old) who ate, literally, entire pizzas at a time, two foot long subs.. truly enormous quantities of food. He was around 6'4''? about 200lbs, and didn't look in any way overweight. He just had an absolutely absurd metabolism.
He also died of a heart attack at 35, so there's that.
I still don't understand what you mean. call me dumb but I need a better explanation.
Well a large number of people have the impression that 1 calorie = quantity of work + fat stored, as in if the body doesn't burn said calorie, it goes to fat, with a very easily-discerned ratio irrelevant of caloric source. In addition, they have the impression that 1 human = x cal/day at idle, x cal/day at y work level, etc. This leads them to the conclusion that weight loss comes from eating x cal (below a given threshold), regardless of caloric source. This would fall in line with how a simple machine processes a fuel source, such as a IC engine.
I personally feel that's incorrect based on my own experiences and what (admittedly limited, I'm a sysad, not a nutritionist) research I've done. I feel that the effects on a body from a given calorie can swing wildly from person to person, age to age, and source to source. There could be plenty of other factors not even addressed as well (rate of caloric storage based on current caloric intake level, stomach flora considerations, level of recent activity, level of recent (1-5 days) caloric intake, etc).
ok... but there's a huge difference between person to person and within a single person.
That is.. if I eat a Snickers bar, the effect that Snickers bar has on my body is guaranteed to be at least slightly different than if you ate it. This is for all the reasons you list and then some.
Also, I eat a Snickers bar and as a result of that I'm over my BMR for a 24 hour period by the number of calories in a Snickers bar, the effect is still guaranteed to be different than if you ate it with the exact same result.
Instead it likely makes sense to think about calories as a percentage of your BMR if you're going to compare across people, but even then for the reasons you mentioned that isn't generally a good idea.
If both of us eat it and both go over our BMR, both of us will gain weight, just different amounts of it.
But back to my question... it seems like dullard is suggesting that 1 calorie has a specific mass. I'm just looking for him to clarify what is meant by that, and if he can explain a bit further why he believes that to be the case. Since a calorie is a unit of energy, this has me curious.
Are you serious? Gut bacteria varies dramatically from person to person. Heck just take a strong antibiotic and see how things change for you.TIL gut bacteria is the same in all individuals and has no effect on health.
The present study shows that the Lactobacillus rhamnosus CGMCC1.3724 formulation helps obese women to achieve sustainable weight loss.
RESULTS:
In the active FM group, abdominal visceral and subcutaneous fat areas significantly (P<0.01) decreased from baseline by an average of 4.6% (mean (confidence interval): -5.8 (-10.0, -1.7) cm(2)) and 3.3% (-7.4 (-11.6, -3.1) cm(2)), respectively. Body weight and other measures also decreased significantly (P<0.001) as follows: body weight, 1.4% (-1.1 (-1.5, -0.7) kg); BMI, 1.5% (-0.4 (-0.5, -0.2) kg/m(2)); waist, 1.8% (-1.7 (-2.1, -1.4) cm); hip, 1.5% (-1.5 (-1.8, -1.1) cm).
That is my point exactly. We need to do conservation of mass when we are talking about mass of a person, not conservation of energy.Wait, what?
What is the mass of a single calorie?
Most of the bro-science in H&F is every bit as bad. Worse, even.
TIL gut bacteria is the same in all individuals and has no effect on health.
Yeah, AT H&F is hardly where all the great minds in fitness science hang out
All kidding aside, some great stuff in there though.
Lets use your own numbers.
Suppose calorie A gives you 1.0 X mass and calorie B gives you 1.1 X mass. Suppose you ate 1000 of calorie A and 1000 of calorie B (2000 total calories). Then, according to your own numbers, that would lead to 1000 * 1.0 X + 1000 * 1.1 X = 2100 X mass.
Now, suppose your statement was true that all you need to do is eat less calories. 1950 of calorie B is less than the 2000 total calories above. What does that give us? 1950 * 1.1 X = 2145 X mass. So more mass with less calories? How can it be, you just told me that all that mattered was less calories.
Using your own numbers (albeit clearly made up numbers) disproves your own statement. If calorie types are different, then no you can't only focus on fewer calories. You would also have to focus on calorie type.
I'm sorry, I genuinely thought I'd applied the most sarcasm to that post that the structure would bear.Are you serious? Gut bacteria varies dramatically from person to person. Heck just take a strong antibiotic and see how things change for you.
My sarcasm meter is broken. Can I borrow that hammer from your avatar to bash in my head a bit?I'm sorry, I genuinely thought I'd applied the most sarcasm to that post that the structure would bear.
No, my assertion was that *I* gain weight while eating a relatively lean caloric intake (1200-2100/day), and that others who have issues maintaining weight levels might experience different results if they tear out the carbs and eat a bunch of protein and fat. I don't believe I ever said that every person on the planet will gain weight eating 1200cal/day of krispy kremes, just that eating an equivalent caloric density (within reason, no 600/day and no 6000/day) of primarily carb food will have a different effect than the same density of carbless food. These sweeping generalizations about what I stated affecting every person on the planet came from you, not me. In addition, the sweeping generalizations about how to lose weight also came from you (everyone should eat less).
This thread is exactly why there is an H&F forum here, because you get all of this incorrect and misinformation when asking a buncha fat nerds in ATOT.
Started as a fat shaming thread, followed by me trying to help out a fellow poster, followed by a dizzying array of posts by people who insist they know better (which ironically loops us back to the fat shaming theme).
Also black men over 50 are more prone to prostate issues, raising up all the white man's costs. Shame! It's an outrage!
You said both (a) calorie type doesn't matter and (b) calorie type does matter in the same post. I'm just pointing out that you were contradicting yourself. I'm not getting into your arguments with the others.You stated the exact point I was making in your last comment, so we're saying the same thing even though you think we aren't.
That is my point exactly. We need to do conservation of mass when we are talking about mass of a person, not conservation of energy.
Shocking idea, isn't it. Although you did mix weight and mass in the same sentence; I'll forgive that minor issue.Are you saying the upper limit of maximum weight gain from any given thing you eat is equal to the mass of the thing you eat?
How much of a manlet are you again as being 140 pounds for a man is healthy for someone about 5'5'' last I checked?
Shocking idea, isn't it. Although you did mix weight and mass in the same sentence; I'll forgive that minor issue.
I just love calorie "math".
1) Supposedly 9 Calories per gram of fat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_energy#Nutrition_labels
2) Supposedly 7700 Calories to gain a kg: http://www.livestrong.com/article/304137-how-many-calories-per-kilogram-of-weight/
3) Thus, each 1 kg of fat you eat, equals 9000 Calories, which equals 1.17 kg gained!
Hurrah for even simple math that doesn't add up!
I believe this is how the universe was created. The great spaghetti monster kept eating pure fat, and each time he ate 1 kg, a free 0.17 kg appeared from nowhere!
Speaking of which, I think I need some pasta with olive oil tonight.
Shocking idea, isn't it. Although you did mix weight and mass in the same sentence; I'll forgive that minor issue.
I just love calorie "math".
1) Supposedly 9 Calories per gram of fat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_energy#Nutrition_labels
2) Supposedly 7700 Calories to gain a kg: http://www.livestrong.com/article/304137-how-many-calories-per-kilogram-of-weight/
3) Thus, each 1 kg of fat you eat, equals 9000 Calories, which equals 1.17 kg gained!
Hurrah for even simple math that doesn't add up!
I believe this is how the universe was created. The great spaghetti monster kept eating pure fat, and each time he ate 1 kg, a free 0.17 kg appeared from nowhere!
Speaking of which, I think I need some pasta with olive oil tonight.