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)
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.
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”
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment