No, there isn't, but I think the difficult thing is knowing exactly what the "calories out" portion of the equation is.Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
No, there isn't, but I think the difficult thing is knowing exactly what the "calories out" portion of the equation is.Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
That's a damn good question. I think the studies I saw on this were just looking at Americans, but I can't remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by dunfree
It is hard to quantify if someone isn't locked in a metabolic ward, but also not actually important. If after 2-3 weeks someone hasn't lost any weight then they weren't actually in a deficit and need to reduce calories further (definitely not saying that further caloric restriction won't make them miserable). But, as was pointed out pages ago, most people have no idea how many calories they actually consume. Even most people actively trying to lose weight aren't weighing their food. Want to have your mind blown? Check out the calorie counts on a lot of Cheesecake Factory salads.Quote:
Originally Posted by The AD
This is a great interview that gets into how these drugs work, the new ones that are in development, and some great discussion of how hunger works in general (spoiler: it's complicated).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5KpIXjpzdY
I am far from an armchair expert on the subject, but the whole calories in, calories out theory that californiagrown is arguing about fails to understand that the "calories out" piece is not simple. I can weigh all my food and know exactly how many calories I am taking in, but how to know my metabolic rate? How to know when that is changing based on dieting or exercise? The body adapts in ways that aren't always perceptible. So, one Wednesday I might sit at my desk and then go on an hour walk. The next Wednesday I might do the exact same thing. That does not mean that my "calories out" was the same for both days.
I lose it again but every year I put on about 5 pounds around Thanksgiving. I don't eat all that much at Thanksgiving and that's the only meal that's really out of the ordinary for me until Christmas. It's like my body is going into hibernation mode and my metabolism slows way down and then it speeds back up as the days start to get longer. Maybe that's kinda what's happening, I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
I’m a bit baffled by how many people are saying “people shouldn’t try to lose weight on Ozempic - they should be adjusting their diet and also exercising more!”
Is there some reason you think they can’t do these simultaneously??
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...1b35b8520e.jpg
And to the people saying “hey some people who stop Ozempic gain the weight back…so yeah it’s no good!”
- well guess what happens when someone makes diet and exercise improvements and then…wait for it…stops those diet and exercise improvements and goes back to how they were living previously…
does that mean no one should try diet and exercise since some people that do that don’t just keep the weight off for ever?
Ozempic isn’t perfect.
Ozempic by itself is not ideal.
Ozempic use needs instructions and education and monitoring.
These aren’t robust logical arguments against its effectiveness no matter how many uneducated people want to virtue signal by mistakingly declaring that they are.
Oral steroids will make you gain weight even under controlled diet. There. You gonna stop being an obtuse twat now? Your 10th grade understanding of metabolism is not something I'm interested in debating. It's not just about how much or how little you eat, and that's a fact. Yes, it does play a part, and a major one, but it's not the whole story, and in the context of severe obesity it's just not enough to make a meaningful difference, thus the meds.Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
If you are tracking your calories, you (generally) know your calories-in. If you are losing weight, you know your calories-out are greater than your calories-in. If you are maintaining, you know they are about equal, and if you are gaining weight you know your calories-out is less than calories-in. Simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
As i keep saying, the game to adjust those two fundamental variables (calories-in and calories-out) to achieve your desired result. And there a lot of ways to play this game, but fundamentally it will ALWAYS come down to calories-in vs calories-out.
None of that invalidates the energy balance model. Long-term averages trump day-to-day variability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
Oh boy. Your flailing now. Can you describe how this would cause someone to gain weight, while ingesting fewer calories than they burn? Cause the scientific world would love to know!Quote:
Originally Posted by Boissal
If youre talking prednisone(etc), it causes water retention, which is not considered weight gain anymore than not drinking water is considered weight loss.
But, maybe im wrong. Can you explain how someone on this magic steroid manages to gain weight while being in a caloric deficit?
I think this is what he was referring to when he called you an obtuse twat.Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
Lemme put it this way: Attributing obesity to overeating (i.e., positive energy balance) is as meaningful as asserting that alcoholism is caused by overdrinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
You don't know what you don't know.
This doesn't invalidate the energy balance model, which is actually a rather complicated equation that accounts for thermic effect of food, food bioavailbiliy, etc. on the "in" and "out" sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by frorider
It does, however, offer a number of potential strategies to manipulate calories in and calories out. We probably wouldn't need obesity drugs if we forced food companies to reduce the caloric density and/or digestability of their products.
Eh, I'm going to push back a bit here. Are there actually metabolic ward studies where people on oral steroids gained fat mass (not just water weight) compared to controls on an isocaloric diet and controlled for physical activity? Oral steroids increase appetite, so in a free living environment I'm inclined to guess that any fat gain is from increased eating and maybe also reduced exercise since they make you feel shitty. They also cause fat redistribution to the face and abdomen, so you *look* fatter without actually being fatter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boissal
As someone who taught Thermodynamics, I agree on your comment about the true & accurate energy balance, but I thought it was an interesting article in terms of educating about intestinal length & other variables that aren’t obvious to most people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
An annoyingly insensitive twat? Eh maybe. I'm bored shit posting with no skiing for the next few months :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
Wrong? Nope. The guy arguing weight gain in a caloric deficit is though!
Gotcha. The intestinal length thing was new to me, too. Colons may not be as intriguing to the public as they once were, but with the number of colonoscopies performed every it actually wouldn't be that hard to do a real study with a huge dataset. That could be a fun grant application to write.Quote:
Originally Posted by frorider
Posing a honest question without trying to make a statement in it:
The calories in / calories out is typically referring to a calculation of calories ingested (swallowed if you will)
If you eat a 1000 calorie steak and I eat the same exact 1000 calorie steak but also take in a bunch of indigestible fiber at the same time - could that affect our bodies absorption of those 1000 calories - thereby affecting the equation?
ie could there be other factors that affect this equation in a significant way
Or will it be such a small difference as to be insignificant overall
So the wheels started turning and I now recall certain studies on the ob/ob (Leptin) mouse.Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
Check it out- even when maintained on a severe calorie-restricted diet (say 50 % of a normal rodent diet), these little fuckers will still maintain their fatness and even become fatter, thus gainsaying the notion that long-term positive energy balance drives obesity.
We're talking about lipogenesis to the detriment of other tissues. And this was happening independently of how much the animals actually ate.
Simple minded.Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
When were the glory years for colon intrigue?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
Yep, long term caloric surplus can destroy insulin sensitivity, metabolism, fucks with hormones, resets homeostasis to obese, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva
But none of that disputes conservation of energy drives weight gain/loss. The mice were in a caloric surplus if they gained, and around maintenance level if they maintained. None gained weight in a caloric deficit. But keep trying, you'll legit get a nobel peace prize if you can disprove conservation of energy.
Simple, for your simple mind.
Late 80s / early 90sQuote:
Originally Posted by muted reborn
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...c07a3dd9b6.jpg
There's a measurable, non-trivial difference but it's relatively small, 5-10%.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennymac
Early 1900s.Quote:
Originally Posted by muted reborn
You'd get much fuller, and not get as big of a blood sugar rise from your sweet tea. Also you'd probly take a much bigger shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennymac