Justifying the Energy balance equation

Hi Andy, thanks for taking the time to read my response. Originally I was going to cover your points, point by point, but in that format I would be writing all day, so Im going to attempt to simplify my points into a serious of paragraphs which will address the questions/views you have. Now as this is not as direct as point by point, I will make sure I cover as much as possible.

Firstly I would like to be clear about something. I am not arguing that we should use cals in vs cals out as the perfect model to base fat loss plans on for our clients. In fact I actually 100% agree with you (and Matt) about picking from a food pyramid of wise food choices. I am arguing that the energy balance equation is completely valid. The law of thermodynamics does apply to humans because energy cannot be created nor destroyed so in human’s case changes in body stores occur. So food choices are the process, but they HAVE to follow the law of thermodynamics, in that to loose weight, there is a physiological necessity to have a caloric deficit. Clearly the fact that the energy equation not being static wasn’t understood your way. Let me explain, and this in turn will answer your questioning of the fact that in the real world its not about calories (“‘Whether we have 100% sugar or 100% fat it will make no difference on weight loss as long as your are calorie deficient weight loss will occur, yet in practice this isn't the case’) when in fact it is about calories and the equation is still valid. To reiterate the energy balance equation is NOT static. As defined in my blog post heres an accurate example of the equation: Energy In (adjusted according to rates of digestion/absorption) = Energy out (RMR+ TEF + TEA + NEAT) + Change in Body Stores (fat and muscle differ, and water plays a very misunderstood part too)

Now: every factor on the right hand side of the above, (BMR/RMR, TEF, TEA and SPA/NEAT) can change based on environment. (I stated this in the blog)
Commonly, yourself included, anti-equation groups tend to  assume that if their maintenance caloric intake is exactly 3500 calories (a calorie balance) that if they start eating 3000 calories (they could also burn 500 calories extra every day from deliberate activity) they should lose exactly half a kilo of fat per week.  Or that that 2,500 calorie/day maintenance will not change.

This is a myopic assumption and even if you don’t take into account the the water balance and muscle vs. fat variables I previously presented, its still incorrect. So the equation isn’t wrong. Why?: Because the equation isn’t static.  Because It changes to all the stimuli I have mentied in the blog article.  Sometimes considerably and is individual specific. And this makes predicted and actual changes in body mass different.

Want some examples of why your line of thought (in that our looking at the energy equation from the view that is doesn’t change when it clearly does) can be misleading? Consider this. Firstly your RMR decreases as you diet. This is due to a range of different factors like decrease in overall bodyweight adaptive components of hormones like leptin, insulin, thyroid hormones and nervous system output, this would alter the equation.You made an effort to state  me not mentioning hormones, well that’s because hormonal difference actually is an example to use for my argument, hormonal shifts caracterize the fat that the equation is not static the whole point I have being trying to nail across. When you lose calories by the above scenario (3500-3000,) you have a 500 cal deficit. Now you should loose ½ a kilo of fat right? Wrong, why? TEF. That in itself proves the idea of taking the eqation at face value doesn’t make it wrong.

Another example is NEAT. As mentioned water balance, muscle vs fat but NEAT play huge roles even when subjects are controlled (some people are naturally more subconsciously active than others, think of those people on public transport who can never stay still/ sit still.) In one particular case a 700 cal difference over the course of a day was seen (but usually between 150-400) but even then that’s significant, definitely significant enough to change the variables energy equation. What about the fact that people who are on diets tend to be more lethargic, which may impact NEAT and TEA which would further alter the equation. These are all examples of the equation not being static and really it actually takes everything into account, variables simply change.

Heres a MASSIVE note as well, it may further answer why your not seeing results with people who perhaps in the past adopted the cal in vs cal out approach. People have been shown to grossly  underestimate (as much as 50%) their calorie intake. And over reported exercise by around the same. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199212313272701 That’s the problem with self report research with no cause and effect relationship.

To explain the fat equation I will quote a wise american man. “WAT in humans is composed primarily (anywhere from 80 to 95%) of lipid. By lipid, I
mean stored triglycerides (TG) which are simply a glycerol molecule bound to three free
fatty acid (FFA) chains. The remaining part of the fat cell is comprised of a little bit of
water as well as all of the cellular machinery needed to produce the various enzymes,
proteins, and products that fat cells need to do their duty. As it’s turning out, fat cells
produce quite a bit of stuff, some good, some bad, that affects your overall metabolism.

For the record, one pound of fat is 454 grams and let’s assume 90% lipid on average. So
about 400 or so grams are actual stored TG. When burned by the body, one gram of fat
provides 9 calories so 400 grams of fat contains about 3600 calories of stored energy. Now
you know where the old axiom of ~3,500 calories to lose a pound of fat comes from”

And in regard to your comment that its ‘impossible’ to measure cals with all the different varibles to factor in, just because something is complicated doesn’t mean its invalid? Its more so the job as a PT to do all the nitty grtty for them. Again to reiterate, I agree with your approach to fat loss I just really want to hammer in that theres nothing wrong with the equation at all, its not wrong invalid, rather misunderstood and misinterpreted with flawed pre conceived ideologies being drawn from inaccurate assumptions.

Can you see now how the equation is not static, it constantly changes due to these factors. So the equation is not invalid, the variables within the equation just constantly change and adapt to numerous stimuli. Calories matter. A deficit must be achieved if weight loss is a goal; it is the law of thermodynamics. The reason why your approach of focusing clients on optimal food choices (paleo comes to mind) something which I also recommend and agree with, it comes down to this simple fact: make people eat less of the foods that are easy to overconsume and/or make them eat lots of those foods that are tough to overeat and they will lose weight because they automatically reduce their caloric intake. Wallah you’ve just achieved an auto regulatory calorie deficit without counting calories! Awsome!  Now heres something I put to you. I agree with your approach to fat loss, but you disagree with my view that the energy equation is valid. Yet as outlined above the number one reason in which you are loosing weight, is the very same number one reason that the energy balance equation

explains. I will stick with my view that The energy balance equation is valid. I suggest you have a browse through the literature and you’ll find that every single weight loss diet has the same fundamental principle behind its success, its not magic it’s a calorie deficit. Science has accepted that, and I encourage your critical thinking but at the same time look objectively at the base of research. Controlling calorie intake in the form of creating a deficit (as you have learned a deficit can come from sooo many different variables) is the number one most important PHYSIOLOGICAL aspect of weightloss. (psychological factors are also very important as we have dissucsed on the fb thread eg intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, mindset and overall behavioural change). I hope this explains everything.

I’m going to repeat myself here I agree with your approach to fat loss Andy I just really want to hammer in that there’s nothing wrong with the equation at all, its not wrong invalid, rather its not static, highly misunderstood and misinterpreted with flawed, pre conceived ideologies being drawn from inaccurate assumptions.

Justifying the Energy balance equation

An in depth Response to the energy balance equation being invalid

Andy you raise a few interesting points, many of which I will address here. But great to see you’re thinking outside the box. But just to clarify I’m stating that the energy equation holds true. Calories in vs. calories out does have flaws due to the simplicity of the statement but the energy equation has many more factors involved some of which I’m sure you are acquainted with, The energy equation is perfectly valid, people just tend to misinterpret it by making some massive assumptions. And it’s actually good to challenge conventional wisdom, its how you learn but i truly believe people just don’t understand the energy equation enough to be able to formulate a personal view of it, let alone justify why their view is correct. I would also note that I was once exactly like you but then I decided to research (i was very bored at school as you’ll tell after this) . I’m not asking you to agree with anything I say I just encourage you to read with an open mind. I think i bring a holistic outlook on the equation.  For those reading who might not be familiar with where I’m coming from I’ll outline below.

        Firstly let’s start with the definition of the energy balance equation. There are 3 distinct parts to the equation. Energy In, Energy out, and Change in body stores. Now I feel the biggest reason people claim that this is not valid is because they don’t realise that there are a number of complicated factors that entail all of the above parts to the equation, many of them misunderstood, and some people just plain have no idea about, I want to shed some light on all of the relevant parts of the question which regularly get overlooked and end up forming individual views that the equation itself is invalid, when that is not the case at in, in fact its due to a lack of understanding about the complicated factors involved.

        Heres a much more accurate interpretation of what the Energy equation is.

Energy In (adjusted according to rates of digestion/absorption) = Energy out (BMR/RMR+ TEF + TEA + NEAT) + Change in Body Stores (fat and muscle differ, and water plays a very misunderstood part too)

         So what the hell does all that mean?

Energy in simply refers to the amount of cals your getting every day via the macronutrients. But when you do further research, as you have done, you will find that not all energy in is equal. DIGESTION and ABSORPTION play an integral role here. Out of the macros (il leave alcohol out for obvious reasons lol) all of them have difference efficiencies of digestion and absorption. For example protein could be separated into animal sources (anywhere from 90-96% effiency) and vegetable protein sources (ranging from 80-85% or so). Fat is highly soluble at an approximate efficiency of 96-98% (the highest of all the macros iv talked about!) Carbs are interesting, it depends on fibre content, percentage wise could be as low as 80% and as high as 85-90, it just depends. Soluble Fibre also tends to bind to small amounts of fat and protein which leads to less overall absorption of what you’re eating. So essentially the take home point with the energy in part of the equation is that not every single calorie your eating is equal and the number of calories you consume aren’t all absorbed, but that doesn’t mean that the energy equation is incorrect It means that It isn’t static ( to reiterate, the ENERGY EQUATION ISNT STATIC). It changes, and this is true in all aspects of the equation, as I will further explain in this response.

Energy out:

Now when most people think of energy out, they just think of their sessions and exercise routines (Iv seen trainers guilty of this as well as clients). Yes that is PART of the energy out process but its missing some other key variables that many trainers and people alike tend to forget about. As the equation above states (Energy out (BMR+ TEF + TEA + NEAT) more factors come into play. I’m going to go them now

 BMR? Base metabolic rate. This basically refers to the amount the energy needed to sustain the body’s most basic functions. For the nerds out there this includes Na/K+ pump (the constant cycling of sodium into the cell and potassium out of it) and protein and fat synthesis ( futile cycles in regards to fat synthesis).  Now I should probably in science its actually seen as more practical to use RMR (resting metabolic rate) Instead of BMR. The reason being is that BMR is basically calculated on the basis that a person is sleeping for a full 24 hours, which as you might guess is kind of unrealistic. Instead RMR is measured in the morning in a fasted state, while resting (eg sitting down reading the paper) which roughly results in a 10% higher number than BMR (can vary from diff individuals ). Also body fat percentage, gender (Stereotypically females have a lower RMR than males due to lower LBM, higher bf percentage and a range of hormonal differences, which especially become prevalent during a woman’s menstruation cycle).

    TEF? Thermal effect of food refers to the increase in metabolic rate that occurs after eating, due to the digestion and oxidation/utilization of the nutrients an individual has consumed.

    Now similarly to the fact that during the 'energy in' aspect of the energy equation, not all macros are absorbed equally, not all macros are processed equally either. For example Protein has the highest thermal effect in the 3 macros iv presented (protein fat and carb) with up to 25% of calories ingested protein being used for processing (in the liver, and stimulation of protein synthesis ect) Carbs again depending on fibre content get converted to glucose and stored as glycogen in muscle tissue or the liver (with some roaming around in our bloodstream as free glucose) they typically use have a 5-7% of TEF. Fat as earlier mentioned is the most soluble out of the three, with a mere 2-3% effect via TEF (I’m aware that an exception t this rule exits in medium chain triglycerides, which actually get processed somewhat in the liver which does tend to stimulate a higher TEF rate) but on the most part its easily processed because it has seemingly infinite stores (as characterised by documentation of people who weigh over 500 kilos at 70% bf).

    TEA? This refers to all activity done beyond basal levels (RMR). This includes working out in the gym, going for a run, walking the dog, walking from your fridge to your coach pretty much any form of physical activity lol. Now TEA is arguably the most individually variable based aspect of the energy out part of the equation. This is because different people have different activity levels and this can change the outcome of a deficit significantly.

NEAT? Neat stands for Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis . This is a relatively new concept which actually explains how in your blog you write about how in studies subjects fed the same amount of overall calories ended up loosing or gaining  different amounts of weight. Neat refers to non-delibrate/subconcious exercise like fidgeting, spontaneous movements and being more subconsciously active. NEAT can account for 200-900 calories/day of caloric expenditure. That’s a significant number that can completely change the outcome of fat loss. So again there’s nothing wrong with the equation here, it’s simpily linked with individual variables.

As you can see from reading the above, there is absolouely nothing wrong with the energy equation, its 100% valid, why? Because its NOT 100% static. To assume that is it static is wrong, which is why people say it doesn’t make sence and isn’t valid, when quite frankly its because the person lacks knowledge. It changes based on the variables that each individual entails. And I want you to really let the what I’m about to say sink in, ALL these variables are completely dependent on ENVIRONMENT. And this is because the equation ISNT static.

Now there are 2 other main factors people who claim the energy equation is invalid don’t take into account. And they are Water balance, and of course the 3^rd part of the equation, changes in body stores.
Il address water balance first, as its not very complicated and quite easy to understand.  Water doesn’t contain any calories whatsoever. Therefore it doesn’t account to either energy in or energy out side of the equation. Having said that water can make a HUGE difference in terms of scale weight. Someone who is eating a moderate to high level of carbohydrates is going to retain more water than a person who follows a more ketogenic style diet, this can be perceived as the carb based diet having an inferior weightloss result but actually its just water weight. By the same token a person who’s been limiting sodium intake, if they increase it they will obviously retain more water. How about the daily shift of water balance based on how much your eating but more importantly drinking? What about various supplements like creatine? Drinking more water retains less water and vice versa. So for example if someone was on a weight loss diet and went from 63 kgs to 60kgs in 3 weeks, but one day had a massive amount of sodium rich high carb food, had some creatine maybe a drank losts of water and weighed themselves, they might find themselves 64 kgs, Oh no! the equation must be wrong, nope not at all you just didn’t tke water balance into account, this is why scale weight isn’t my preferred tool for measuring progress on a fat loss diet, because as just mentioned its about fat loss, not weightloss.
      Speaking of weight loss, Lets address the ‘changes in body stores’ part of the equation. Now interestingly you used the stereotypical 3500 cals in a kilo of fat, but have you every wondered where that originated, I have, and luckily for you Im going to tell you. Scientist figured out that white adipose tissue (the most prevalent fat type in humans) is composed of about 85-95 % lipid. Lipid is essentially a molecule of glycerol bound to 3 free fatty acid chains. The rest contains some cellular machinery geared towards creating enzymes and help facilitate the production of various hormones and a few more come to mind but you get my drift. Now having said that half a kilo of fat contains about 450g of fat, now if 85-95% of that is lipid, lets say 90% on average then that =  around 400g of fat x that by 9 = 3600, wollah, that’s where that 3500 roughly came from.
    So by that logic if you took your 3500 cals and took it to 3000, you should loose half a kilo a week right? Well no, and heres why. You’re basing this on the assumption that 100% of the weight loss your losing is fat. This would obviously be ideal, but its far from realistic. In the real world people loose LBM (in the form of muscle mass and connective tissue) ASWELL as fat. In fact this is almost inevitable. Now muscle and connective tissue doesn’t supply the body anywhere near as much energy to the body, it takes roughly 3500 cals to burn half a kilo of 100% fat but around only 600-700 to burn half a kilo of muscle connective tissue. And take note that we are talking in absolutes here. Realistically the numbers 70% fat and 30% would be common muscle&connective tissue will be lost AND that’s on a pretty decently constructed diet! A diet with insuffienct protein and the wrong training program could very well result in the same 70 30 split but the other way around! So again the equation isn’t at fault here at all, its STILL 100% valid, people just don’t take these details into account.

The energy balance equation is not static
People need to take into account that fat and muscle are not the same
people need to realise that in the energy out part of the equation is hugely variable based on the individual (RMR tea, tef, neat)
people need to take into account water affects scale weight
Yes, people also need to take into account as you mentioned, RMR dropping due to adaptation of a deficit, and deregulation of levels of hormones like leptin ect. But that doesn’t mean that the equation is invalid it just adapts.

What this all comes down to is that the energy balance equation is not invalid, its just not static, its changes depending on  environment and all the other factors I have mentioned, sometimes significantly. The law of thermodynamics holds true I agree with you calories in vs calories out is abit simplified, but that doesn’t make the energy balance equation flawed, it just makes it complicated. So technically me saying It is as simple as calories in vs calories out, is just as valid as you stating calories in vs cals out has its flaws, oversimplified is a more accurate description than being flawed.

In regards to your propostion that you would end up -13 kgs. That was a silly example, you would clearly never even get remotely close to that level or youd be dead and all the above will address that. But interestingly enough there is an infamous study, the longest of its type done in the early-mid 20^th century that looked at the effect of a 50% below BMR calorie intake for 6 months. Essentially even though the body adapted by lowering the BRM by as much as 40% the people CONSISTALY  lost weight  the whole way through until dangerous levels of bf were achived (4-5%). Check it out ‘semi starvation study minnesota’.