[hugh_]

I don't have time to spend a lovely Saturday morning watching a 90-minute video just to criticize it, but how can one "debunk" the calories-in calories-out model? Surely this is just plain old thermodynamics?

[pg]

If you're that busy you should skip commenting too.

The answer is that humans are not simple furnaces; different foods are metabolized in different ways, and affect appetite differently.

[ellyagg]

While that's true, the prime mover in weight gain is still calories. The type of calories is a secondary effect.

Discussing diet is hard because everyone reasons from personal experience. E.g., in my experience, almost all my fluid intake is Dr. Pepper and I consume large quantities of the "worst" food, as a proportion of my diet, but I don't eat that much and I work out, so I'm strong and fit with low cholesterol.

[hugh_]

Heck, you're right, I should!

[neilk]

He doesn't debunk it. He asks the question why the normal regulation of the body, that tells you to stop eating, isn't working.

His answer is complex, but it all has to do with the introduction of fructose as a macronutrient after the 1970s.

[pohl]

The submitter's sensational headline has very little to do with the lecture. You shouldn't watch it to criticize it. You should watch it because it is a very good presentation.

[gruseom]

Surely this is just plain old thermodynamics?

Normally I'd be irritated at this obvious glib objection, but we have to make a physicist allowance in this case :)

The other one you hear all the time is, "But how can fructose be bad? It's in fruit." Gee, do you think he might have thought of that?

[steveplace]

And he brings up that point, and solidly refutes it.

Since you're short on time-- the human body processes a calorie of fructose differently than glucose-- it's actually more like ethanol (Maker's Mark in his case).