I just cannot take seriously anything that claims exercise and calorie restriction are ever ineffective. It's literally always user error. The law of thermodynamics dictates this, any other opinion is pseudoscience. It might be difficult or impossible for the individual to stick to the plan, but if you start off your article by claiming they did everything right and it still didn't work, then I know the writer has no interest in facts.
I used to believe firmly in this too. Now, I'm a bit more open-minded, and I don't believe it's as simple as the "law of thermodynamics".
True, noone can store more energy than you ingest.
But - as the article says - it's very difficult to know exactly how much you're ingesting. The calorimeter is a very blunt way of determining how much energy is "in" food - not only do food labels probably routinely understate how much energy something contains, it has no way of explaining how that energy is actually digested or metabolized by the human body.
Many people calculate their diet based on very slim (~500 kcal) margins. It's conceivable that these are obliterated by these small fluctuations in actual vs labelled calorific content.
That's without getting into issues like insulin sensitivity and so on.
My go-to recommendation for people trying to lose weight is eliminate all sugar and simple/starchy carbohydrates and start a fairly light exercise program. This will have a marked impact on appetite, and most people will naturally start losing weight. If weight loss stalls, start playing around with meal portions and feeding windows.
So far, I haven't heard of anyone who hasn't lose weight with this routine.
> My go-to recommendation for people trying to lose weight is eliminate all sugar and simple/starchy carbohydrates and start a fairly light exercise program. This will have a marked impact on appetite, and most people will naturally start losing weight. If weight loss stalls, start playing around with meal portions and feeding windows.
When I did something similar, it worked great for a while, but rather than the weight loss stalling, I started gaining weight. If I don't severely portion control basically everything except green vegetables, I gain weight.
I should note that this was just once I reached my mid 30s that this became an issue; prior to that an so long as I exercised regularly, my appetite and my weight were better matched.
Oh, in terms of real world results, it's definitely an ongoing process of experimentation and adjustment. I have no background in the field so I can't claim much expertise, but it seems the profession is just starting to scratch the surface of the relationship between food, age, hormones and weight gain.
For now, I think it's much more important to change your habits and mindset around eating, then see how your body responds.
Thermodynamics can only be invoked when we know enough about the systems involved to make effective decisions.
Our present knowledge of how food is turned into both used and stored energy is extremely rudimentary... there's a ton of chemical processes occurring, all with various different levels of efficiencies and failsafes.
Take two humans of identical weight. Now feed them exactly the same thing. I guarantee you will not have the same outcome for both.
We are not at a place in science where human bodies are like car engines. We don't know how fuel gets combusted. We don't even know how to tell if someone is a 4-cylinder or a V8.
So, given that the user manual is basically a blank page-- how can you just claim user error? That is a gross exaggeration that trivializes the plight of many.
Counting calories is how people who depend professionally on their weight, like dancers and athletes, hit their target weight at their target time. It works.
However, most people do not want to live the lives of professional dancers and athletes; such lives are often physically unpleasant. So they need diet plans that take psychology into account, not just physics.
If people can't or won't take their medicine, is it the medicine's fault?
When people lack the intelligence, willpower, or consistency needed to make prescriptions (of pills, exercise, or diet) work, there's not much you can do for them except lock them up and force them to do the things.
If you need to be on a diet and you can't stick to it, there's not much we can do for you except maybe come up with a pill that makes your brain hurt less when you're on the diet, like we do with curing drug addiction.
You are aware that there are health conditions that make people loose or gain weight with no change in livestyle? That alone makes thermodynamics argument non scientific. That is just not how human body works.
As far as I have read, literally no one in this comments section is arguing against the laws of thermodynamics. If you actually believe that so many people here are simply thermodynamics deniers, it might be helpful to take a step back and re-read with that in mind.
No, I didn't; that was another poster. However, if you think that is claiming that thermodynamics is wrong, you're misreading it. Instead, it's claiming that the usual argument people make, when they're referencing thermodynamics, is non-scientific.
(The real objection here is that chickens are not spherical. Or, less flippantly: that human bodies do not typically operate at a set efficiency with regard to thermodynamically available energy in food. The efficiency of extraction varies widely. In some cases the specific reasons are well known, and in some they are not, but assuming a set efficiency for turning food into energy (and fat) is like the physics joke "first, let's assume a spherical chicken...".)
No I said that. It quite obviously meant that the actual body is more complicated then simple model you have in mind. Effectively, you are using big words to avoid dealing with real world complexity. Scientific approach is to take account of real world complexity, as many factors that influence the outcome as possible etc. Not just throw laws one vaguelly remembers from elementary school.
Lastly, either you want to play manipulative games where you twist words being said to mean what they dont, or you want to discuss actual topic.
I'm honestly not trying to twist words to prove a point. Apparently I didn't understand what you are trying to say.
Calories in v calories out works. It really is that simple. Of course people have different metabolic rates, so you tailor your plan over time to find what works for you. It's an iterative process. If you are aiming for X lbs / week and see Y after a free weeks, then increase or decrease intake.
You brought up rare medical conditions which cause weight gain, typically due to edema or metabolic irregularity. All I said is that those conditions don't apply to the vast majority of people and, even when they do, their bodies aren't storing more energy than they intake and use.
What do you think about the idea that metabolic rates can change, or the proportions of material in the body consumed can change, in response to certain diet and exercise combinations?
I hope no one disputes that thermodynamics exist, but it’s much less certain that every health program receives exactly the same thermodynamic assistance from the body. Keep in mind that the majority of calories burned do not come from active exercise.
It is not just different body. Try to fees on pure sugar+vitamins (exact correct amount of calories) - you will be hungry and disfunctional and possibly gaining weight.
Starving people loose weight. They also develop host of problems, both psychological and physical. And our bodies have mechanisms to force is to eat by instinct to avoid that. When those mechanisms fail, we loose weight while being too tired to work, by gaining weight the first day after diet, by being dumb etc.
But beyond that, sugar is not same as same amount of calories from protein.
I think you should be a bit more open minded and critical. The point is that the energy required for exercise has been over emphasised and the relationship between calorie estimates and the energy that a person gets from that food is not linear. Therefore "fewer in than out" can end up meaning that you gain body fat rather than get rid of it. Conversely if you simply change the type of food (to unprocessed and uncooked) then your calories and exercise can remain static while you start losing body fat.
Note that the laws of thermodynamics only specify the minimum number of calories you must consume (i.e., to not lose weight, or to not die).
There is no real maximum to the amount of calories your body can waste (as heat or by excretion). Nor is there any law saying that we're all equally efficient (or even close).
> I just cannot take seriously anything that claims exercise and calorie restriction are ever ineffective
Nor should you, because it is utter nonsense.
Science denial with weight loss and obesity is just as prolific as science denial with climate, pollution, evolution, flat earth, sex, evolution, and any other post-fact topic.
