Posted: May 23, 2011 8:19 pm
I'm still working google over on this topic to see what is out there. I found a few things that I think are worth reading.
This first one is a trainer/bodybuilder that I don't always agree with, but his blog will make you think. In this one, he really goes off on the calories in/calories out thing-
I also like to read this next site. It's one of the Paleo type sites, but a little different. Some of the readers are pro-low-carb (keto) some not so much. The forum participants are very, very well informed, and they don't always agree-
There was a response on this thread that has a very good way to calculate energy in/out.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-lo ... ation.html
So, if you must have a calculation to show in/out and how it works, the last link is the best thing I have seen. It's not as simple as most trainers or idiot dietitians say it is. They are way off. Still it does not explain the huge differences in people based on what kinds of calories they take in. Living off of sugar/carbs vs living off of a balanced diet will result in different weight even if calories are exactly the same. So the in/out theory still has problems.
This first one is a trainer/bodybuilder that I don't always agree with, but his blog will make you think. In this one, he really goes off on the calories in/calories out thing-
Calories-in, Calories-out: Stop the Nonsense
I’ve known competitors who became so calories-balanced-obsessed that they cut broccoli spears or green beans in half so it measures “right” on the scale. This is what the myth of the calories-in, calories-out logic leads to. And it’s too bad because it’s much ado about nothing. It’s a lot of mental stress over an illusion of control that simply does not exist. But the calorie balance emphasis “seems” like it exists because the industry uses it with a focus entirely in the “immediate” realm of time. But there are three realms of time the body adjusts for: the immediate, the residual, and the cumulative...
http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/03/c ... -myth.html
I also like to read this next site. It's one of the Paleo type sites, but a little different. Some of the readers are pro-low-carb (keto) some not so much. The forum participants are very, very well informed, and they don't always agree-
It is safe to say that calories in/calories out is a useless and discredited way of explaining body weight. It neglects the chemistry of fat storage, which according to GCBG, WWGF, and much known research, really depends (for the most part) on insulin, the fat storage hormone. It's not that simple, but that's the main driver.
Taubes made one example in WWGF of animals that store energy for the winter. It's not like they eat like crazy before the winter. Hormones are key. If nature worked on calories in/calories out, animals and humans would pretty much have to eat every day, at a steady rate, and there would be no way to explain hibernation or survival in times of scarcity.
i was thinking today that this concept needs to be replaced. Has it been replaced already? If not, what should take its place?
If one wanted to have a way of calculating what weight is going to be based on what one eats and how much activity they do, it would also need to take into account the chemistry of what they eat, and hormonal/metabolic status of the individual. It seems to get complicated pretty quick...
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread30583.html
There was a response on this thread that has a very good way to calculate energy in/out.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-lo ... ation.html
So, if you must have a calculation to show in/out and how it works, the last link is the best thing I have seen. It's not as simple as most trainers or idiot dietitians say it is. They are way off. Still it does not explain the huge differences in people based on what kinds of calories they take in. Living off of sugar/carbs vs living off of a balanced diet will result in different weight even if calories are exactly the same. So the in/out theory still has problems.