[JoeAltmaier]

There's this strange opinion circulating that the calories don't matter. It stems from an observation that some calories 'stick' more readily than others. From that, they leap to the conclusion that calories are meaningless.

I'm with you - physics rules. No matter what calories you consume, fewer is better for weight control. But don't try to argue with these folks. They can't acknowledge even the obvious boundary cases: eating nothing inevitably leads to losing weight.

[Nrsolis]

There is some anecdotal evidence that varying macronutrient levels affect hormone levels in significant ways.

Screwing with hormone levels is a great way to affect the metabolism rate and lipid storage capability of the human body. That's what bodybuilders have been doing for decades. Steroid use is the ultimate manifestation of that school of thought.

The truth is that we know very very little about nutrition because doing controlled double-blind studies on human subjects is very very difficult. Bodybuilders are probably the best population to study because of the self-experimentation angle.

[JoeAltmaier]

We know this about nutrition: activity burns calories at extremely predictable rates. Food has calories at extremely predictable densities. Physics works.

And see? Even these fundamental facts about physics get disputed/denied by the nutrition nuts.

[whatusername]

I'll bite.

We measure calories in food by burning it in a lab and calculating the exact energy given off. Very precise. What we don't measure is how many pieces of that cob of corn I ate for dinner will pass through to my stool.

And I'll accept the comment that activities burn calories at predictable rates (they don't across populations -- look at exercise adaptation) but they can per individual. But treating the consumption of calories and the expenditure of calories as independent variables seems foolish. For an absurd comparison -- do you think my Caloric consumption over the next 24 hours would be identical if I consumed 10 calories of chocolate or 10 calories of amphetamines?

Physics works. A calorie is a calorie. But pretending that the human body treats all calories the same as a calorometer seems foolish.

[JoeAltmaier]

All correct, agreed. What it means is, there is some level of exercise that will consume enough calories to exhaust ready supply. Then weight loss occurs.

The silliness begins when folks start to bargain. How little exercise can I get away with? How can I eat a lot and not gain weight? Its this lazy concern that occupies everybodys thoughts and behaviors. They write whole books about it.

When in fact, if they'd get off their lazy butts and exercise, really exercise, they could forget about all those details. Physics could work for them.

And by exercise I mean ride that bike 20 miles over the lunch hour. With some stiff hills involved. Really exert yourself. But few want to do that. They want to ride a recumbent 5 miles on the flat and then eat 3 hamburgers. And complain that exercise clearly doesn't work because they're not losing weight.

Its astonishing how little exercise most folks have ever done in their lives. I'd go this far: most folks have never exercised. They've warmed up, and then stopped when they hit the point their muscles feel it. I know this - I've taken folks hill-riding and had them stop. "Something's wrong. I feel funny. My heart rate is up and my muscles are complaining". They'd never gotten aerobic in their entire lives, and were afraid of the feeling.

[pharke]

From personal experience, and this was some years ago, I've found that on a high carb, high fat diet e.g. breakfast: beans, bacon, eggs, toast. lunch: sandwich with deli meat, cheese, mayo. supper: bread, veg, and meat, plus a few cups of coffee and a beer thrown in caused pretty rapid weight gain (30lbs.) with what I would call a normal amount of activity, walking a reasonable distance to and from work, intentional exercise 2 - 3 times per week, some activity on the weekends but the rest of the time spent at a desk or on a couch.

After taking a summer job doing manual labour that involved constant, intense activity (lots of shovelling, sweeping, lifting, walking, pushing and pulling) from 8 AM to 1 PM every day I saw a complete reversal in weight while maintaining the same diet.

So from my own experience, it is absolutely possible to eat a fairly heavy diet and lose weight. It all depends on balancing your intake with the amount of energy you consume during the day. The only problem is that it takes a lot of heavy physical work to use those calories and the exercise regimen that most people assume comes no where near to what it takes to use up the amount they take in.

As far as quitting before you actually really start exercising, there was a good quote by Muhammad Ali circulating the other day [1] "I don't count my sit-ups. I only start counting when it starts hurting. That is when I start counting, because then it really counts. That's what makes you a champion."

[1] https://i.imgur.com/ylOAYnR.jpg

[geon]

Exercise is great and all, but diet is faaaaaar more important for weight loss.

[mistermann]

Indeed, this chart shows caloric burn for various activities, the body is very efficient:

http://www.thehealthyeatingguide.com/calorie-burning-chart/

[crusso]

While your are correct in a fundamental physics way, you might be ignoring the details of human chemistry and its resulting psychology impact. There's are reasons for the relatively recent obesity epidemic. Those reasons are rooted in the misguided dietary recommendations to reduce fat in favor of increasing carbs.

https://www.thebairs.net/2015/05/recommended-reading-why-we-...

[JoeAltmaier]

These reasons are rooted in everybody sitting on their butt 23 hours a day, and not really exercising at all even when 'working out'.

[crusso]

You say that as though exercising like a competitive athlete is necessary for good health or weight maintenance. It isn't. It's much simpler to understand the insulin cycle and work with it rather than against it.