[curun1r]

The problem with your line of reasoning is the counterintuitive results mentioned in the article that came from examining primitive cultures that lead a much more active lifestyle. Despite engaging in activities that were far more active, they didn't burn more calories.

This is one of the many problems with the calorie in, calorie out line of reasoning that seeks to treat the human body like an automobile that uses fuel solely based on pressing the accelerator. What we're finding is that this isn't the case. For one, the body isn't 100% efficient, so a lot of calories in are lost in ways that aren't "burned." It's also likely that the body of a sedentary person is burning calories fairly inefficiently, so a change to being more active without altering diet will just cause that body to be more efficient in how it burns calories rather that burning fat or muscle reserves.

Calories in, calories out is an attractive concept, especially to scientifically-minded people who love the simplicity of deriving the answer by applying a fundamental law of thermodynamics. But the more we dig into the subject, the more we're realizing that it's a wrong-headed approach. The body is much more complex than that. We need a much more nuanced approach to nutrition, though "carbs are bad" seems to be a pretty good approximation of it.