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 3rd 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 20th 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’.
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 20th 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’.
No comments:
Post a Comment